kaleidostar1187 said: Treekodar said: If I remember correctly, love lasts somewhere around 12 years. I wonder how long lust can last. What love are you talking about? My parents have been married for over 30 years and still love each other with a passion. That's close to the average for a marriage to last in the U.S. Don't let it bother you, he's just throwing out statistics. It's good that you have parents who are still married, mine actually divorced after almost 40 years of marriage. |
| "Love" is lust. Some people just don't want to admit that sex is everything and wish to create some fantasy-like term to make themselves feel better about the experience. For example, the whole "love at first sight" thing, if it even exists, isn't it just extreme attraction? No one "falls in love at first sight" with a complete stranger that doesn't appeal sexually to him or her. True relationships don't exist without some sort of physical attractions, whether it be sex or simply brushing fingers. Those are the moments that people describe as making their hearts "skip a beat". It is after one realizes that there is some sort of attraction that they begin to associate it with the other's "inside" qualities and think it's love. Everything is based on sexuality, especially love. For my personal choice, I actually don't prefer one or the other, considering "love" is a nonexistant term, in my opinion, and I find lustful actions undesirable. |
| It's Real Love thatcha don know about. |
| "Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. And some will lose more than the tips off their fingers, I promise you. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that" |
| True love lasts forever and is wonderful. Lust is just being horny. Forest-kun said: What if you're asexual and fall in love with someone? It's not sexual than is it."Love" is lust. Some people just don't want to admit that sex is everything and wish to create some fantasy-like term to make themselves feel better about the experience. For example, the whole "love at first sight" thing, if it even exists, isn't it just extreme attraction? No one "falls in love at first sight" with a complete stranger that doesn't appeal sexually to him or her. |
| I hate you all. |
| @ kaleidostar1187 There are plenty of men who have a more emotional mindset towards relationships and plenty of women who have a more physical one. Modern day media pushes towards people having to look good because that is an unfortunately accurate portrayal of modern day society and life. It is accurate because most people "fall" for people they find attractive at first. The other, much smaller percentage who "fall" for less attractive people are attracted to certain parts of the person's personality, but in doing so, that person becomes sexually appealing to them. Once one believes he or she loves another, then that person does become attractive, if at least to him or her. There are emotional criteria for liking another person, but that is just people bonding or relating to other people; it is not necessarily "love". Marriage, if anything, is based on sexuality. Abstinance and adultery, for example, are terms relating to rules of marriage, and they are all about sex. When two people are married, that means they "belong" to eachother, and it is a sexual bond. Only those two people may sleep with eachother. The rule of abstinance was established to make sure someone would be "pure" to be ready for their partner once married. People like to associate more emotional ties to marriage, but it is about sex more than anything else. @ Lolis_and_Shotas What exactly is "true" love? How can one "love" be different than another, if love was an existant term that did Not revolve around sex? As for the asexual part, that is not a possible thing for a human to be, and humans are the only creatures that try to familiarize their emotions into sex. If it were a possibility to consider, though, then it is still based on attractiveness. If there is any physical appealing, then it is a sexual factor; in this case, the appeal doesn't have to be sex, but again, could be the simple brushing of fingers. I can't think of a single, real relationship where love is claimed that has no physical involvement or desire. |
Forest-kun said: Marriage, if anything, is based on sexuality. Abstinance and adultery, for example, are terms relating to rules of marriage, and they are all about sex. When two people are married, that means they "belong" to eachother, and it is a sexual bond. Only those two people may sleep with eachother. The rule of abstinance was established to make sure someone would be "pure" to be ready for their partner once married. People like to associate more emotional ties to marriage, but it is about sex more than anything else. What about legal benefits? There are some... Also, there are people who are disgusted by sex. I know this is just one example but two "asexual" people (they just didn't ever want to have sex) got married just for the companionship. Their marriage is not based on sex. Then again, just one strange example. |
| @ prismheart True, legal benefits can play a huge role, but nowadays, it is more physical. Back in another day and age when marriage was more political, it was the other way around, not that it doesn't happen in the current time. Yes, there are such people; I'm a prime example. I suppose that example of the two asexuals could be possible, but I find it hard to believe. People who don't desire any physical interaction most often don't desire any romantic relationships at all. And as for marrying for companionship, in this time, that is a rather unheard of event. Marriage is a pretty extreme solution to lonliness without physical interaction. I'm sure, though, once I've said this, someone will prove me wrong with a whole list of legitimate examples ^_^V |
Forest-kun said: I don't have any interest in having sex, and I don't get horny, from my understanding that's being asexual. So explain to me how asexuality doesn't exist? I love my waifu more than anything, and she doesn't physically exist in this world.As for the asexual part, that is not a possible thing for a human to be, and humans are the only creatures that try to familiarize their emotions into sex. If it were a possibility to consider, though, then it is still based on attractiveness. If there is any physical appealing, then it is a sexual factor; in this case, the appeal doesn't have to be sex, but again, could be the simple brushing of fingers. I can't think of a single, real relationship where love is claimed that has no physical involvement or desire. |
| I hate you all. |
| @ Lolis_and_Shotas I apologize; I was thinking about a different meaning. Your understanding was correct. Asexuality does exist, but it's an extrememly rare case for an asexual person to be involved in a real relationship. I know I'm repeating myself, but love is lust because it is based on physical attraction. One can be attracted to another physically without having sex with him or her. The physical desire can be nonsexual; examples are kissing, hugging, holding hands, caressing the face, or any simple touch. In short, even asexual people can feel attraction and claim it as love. As far as your "waifu", most people are attracted to fictional characters based on appearances. Anime proves this best of all with all the perverts in the industry giving it a bad reputation. A character, while fictional, still has the ability to cause arousal, thus creating lust and "love". It's not too uncommon for people to "fall" for things rather than people. People can reject and hurt others, so some prefer fictional characters (the appeal varies from "liking" to "obsessing over"). Sometimes people claim to "love" inanimate objects. In those cases, it is still a strong appeal. I don't think the term "lust" could be used in such cases unless the appeal became sexual, but both cover the term "love". I apologize again for my misunderstanding of your first post. It's late ^_^V |
| @Forest-kun: Quit sounding like Freud. I don't like that guy. He makes me see inappropriate things everywhere. |
Forest-kun said: Asexuality does exist, but it's an extrememly rare case for an asexual person to be involved in a real relationship. I know I'm repeating myself, but love is lust because it is based on physical attraction. One can be attracted to another physically without having sex with him or her. The physical desire can be nonsexual; examples are kissing, hugging, holding hands, caressing the face, or any simple touch. In short, even asexual people can feel attraction and claim it as love. Aren't you just defining lust and calling it love? That's what many people do, I guess... |
 「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
| @ Zmffkskem Yeah, that is pretty common, actually. I do it because in my belief, love is a nonexistant thing or entity; however, the term or word itself is interchangeable with the term "lust". Lust exists, and some people like to use the term "love" instead to give their actions and feelings a more romantic air about it and to make their desires appear less sensual to give them more depth. As I've made my point about before, love Is lust; that's why I can just define lust and call it love, just like most people do. @ AbstractCalamity I'm sorry if you don't agree with my opinion. I didn't mean to sound like Freud, just myself; however, I do find his work to be very interesting, and from what I've studied, I agree with him. That's probably why I sound like him, to be honest. It's true that he's got a pretty negative outlook on things and much of his theories are based on instinctual, sexual desires, so I can understand why you don't like him, but that's how I think. I had those theories before I ever even heard of Freud, so of course I'd side with him ^_^V |
Forest-kun said: Yeah, that is pretty common, actually. I do it because in my belief, love is a nonexistant thing or entity; however, the term or word itself is interchangeable with the term "lust". Har... Well... At least belief is noted. Forest-kun said: Lust exists, and some people like to use the term "love" instead to give their actions and feelings a more romantic air about it and to make their desires appear less sensual to give them more depth. As I've made my point about before, love Is lust; that's why I can just define lust and call it love, just like most people do. So I wonder, what do you call the feeling where people give knowingly, and the classic "I want my beloved to be happy." Are you really going to deem it altruism? Surely, such is not altruistic if one derives contentment upon the happiness they see in their loved ones. I could easily assume no physical contact as well, so what does that make them? Monsters? I also see obsession with marriage. Marriage is unfortunately more of a societal artifact if anything. Society's response is cohabitation. Forest-kun said: Modern day media pushes towards people having to look good because that is an unfortunately accurate portrayal of modern day society and life. It is accurate because most people "fall" for people they find attractive at first. The other, much smaller percentage who "fall" for less attractive people are attracted to certain parts of the person's personality, but in doing so, that person becomes sexually appealing to them. Once one believes he or she loves another, then that person does become attractive, if at least to him or her. I admit I am superficial, but I find the last part not very plausible. Just because a leper is kind, does not make me find the leper beautiful. I also question the transformation of sexual appeal, I am inclined to say that people are sexually appealing all along, and a longer length of period of interaction creates chances for (two) people to realise that appeal. |
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
| @ Zmffkskem Yes, I have to specify it's my belief because there are some, like yourself, who disagree. The feeling of people willingly and knowingly giving unto others, such as the example you gave ("I want my beloved to be happy"), I would call that altruism. If one does derive joy from seeing the joy of others, then that is not altruism, which is unselfishness. If you derive pleasure from a certain action and perform that action to satisfy that desire, then it is not altruistic. If someone else benefits from that action, then all is does is help the first person feel justified in their action, but is still no longer altruistic. I used marriage as an example before because I saw it as a fitting one because it revolves around and is based on "love" and "lust". I agree that in the end it is simply a social process than anything else. It just binds two people together as sexual partners, but it is more official than just cohabition. There are upsides to it, such as companionship, support, etc., but marriage was founded on sensual terms. I don't mind if you don't agree with what I say; I would just like to make my point about what I find implausible, just as you do. In the example of the leper, do you love someone merely because he or she is kind? If so, you would find yourself attracted to countless people if that was the only factor. Beauty and lust do not have to be the same; the definition of beauty changes over time in society as different trends come and go, but sexual attraction varies on a much more personal level (this is where fetishes and fantasies come into play). Every person is sexually appealing to at least someone in this world, so of course, in that sense, people can be appealing all along, like you said. When I talked about the transformation, I was refering to the case of two people who normally wouldn't "fall" for the other because he or she does not appear to be what he or she would usually attract to; however, attraction may develop over time, which explains why one's preferences may change over time. This also explain why, as you've said, longer interaction times may create chances for them to notice an appeal. But in the end, it is about appeal and lust creating the illusion of "love". *For the record, I realize some people, when thinking of the word "lust", only associate the worst examples, such as sexual deviants or people who can't control their lust and become players or perverts; however, lust is not a bad thing. For relationships to be, lust is required between two people. Lust is only bad when it is excessive to the point of becoming uncontrollable.* |
Forest-kun said: So what you're saying is because she isn't "3d" I don't actually love her? Whatever, I know I love her more than anyone or anything, and I love her for who she is. In my opinion love doesn't have to be physical like you seem to think.It's not too uncommon for people to "fall" for things rather than people. People can reject and hurt others, so some prefer fictional characters (the appeal varies from "liking" to "obsessing over"). Sometimes people claim to "love" inanimate objects. In those cases, it is still a strong appeal. I don't think the term "lust" could be used in such cases unless the appeal became sexual, but both cover the term "love". |
| I hate you all. |
| @ Lolis_and_Shotas I didn't say that you couldn't love a 3-D character; I actually made a point of explaining how and why some people Do love them (attraction and emotional safety). If you claim to love her, then there is Some sort of physical attraction involved, which can then be mentally transferred to an emotional appeal of the character's personality or special traits. That is how you can say you "love her for who she is". In terms of "physical", the appeal can be sensual, tangible, or even visible; this creates the possibility of appealing to a fictional character, such as in your case. I'm glad you are able to realize your feelings and desires. I am also glad that you are able to realize that you are entitled to an opinion, even if it differs with my own. |
Forest-kunJul 24, 2011 10:37 PM
| The only thing Freud was good for was pushing psychology into the realm of science. The majority of his work was bullshit. I think what we're failing to do here is to come up with definitions of love and lust. And then even after that, we're just going to end up spouting out bullshit theories by claiming "most people do..." or "most people end up..." and "I believe that..." Sure, your beliefs are important. But why do you believe them? Very likely because of some unproven idea you have about the nature of people. I have news for you, though; generalizing people in black and white scenarios such as this one is a bad idea. Lust is complicated. Love is complicated. People are complicated. Although, to speed things up, I've got some definitions for you guys: Love Lust I know, dictionary.com isn't exactly the place to go for complex definitions. But at least now we have some guidelines. |
zharnotczar said: I think what we're failing to do here is to come up with definitions of love and lust. And then even after that, we're just going to end up spouting out bullshit theories by claiming "most people do..." or "most people end up..." and "I believe that..." Sure, your beliefs are important. But why do you believe them? Very likely because of some unproven idea you have about the nature of people. I have news for you, though; generalizing people in black and white scenarios such as this one is a bad idea. Lust is complicated. Love is complicated. People are complicated. Aww, you had to spoil it, however, people think different definitions when they type, and even well-worded definitions can be interpreted widely(when ideally it is not supposed to... but well...) Actually, beliefs are not so important as that they are clarified as beliefs, so at least massive (meaningless) proselytization can be avoided. There is a need to provide sweeping statements that afford no loss of generality to 'The Man' who is an averaged out monster of all human population. @Forest-kun Since our stances are clarified enough, I didn't find a need to quote the other paragraphs. I see your point regarding lust.(and I hope you see my beliefs) However, there remains this point of semantics and little nitty gritty detail which you may or may not feel like overlooking. I will quote the big chunk I am not very interested in first: Forest-kun said: If one does derive joy from seeing the joy of others, then that is not altruism, which is unselfishness. If you derive pleasure from a certain action and perform that action to satisfy that desire, then it is not altruistic. If someone else benefits from that action, then all is does is help the first person feel justified in their action, but is still no longer altruistic. I find this logic self-consistent. Forest-kun said: The feeling of people willingly and knowingly giving unto others, such as the example you gave ("I want my beloved to be happy"), I would call that altruism. However, now I want to point out the fact that there is the word 'want' in "I want my beloved to be happy." This suggests that the person 'gains' something or generally contentment from such an event "my beloved being happy." Thusly, why would such be altruistic? There is a gain involved. In a way, I am arguing for general non-existence of altruism here. However, I think such is the same idiosyncrasy for arguing the non-existence of love as you claim it. What then, is the name given to the behaviour that seeks "I want my beloved to be happy?" My answer is that, to keep things simple, it should be named love, and that it generally is highly altruistic. |
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
| @ zharnotczar Psychology is the science, or study of, mind and behaviour; it's already "in the realm of science", and his work consisted of experiments, theories, hypothesises, and publications, just like any other esteemed scholar or scientist. It's true that many things in life, such as lust, love, or people, are complicated, but we must develop some beliefs in order to gain some understanding of those things. Beliefs are based on past experiences and are proven or disproven by future experiences; it's all trial-and-error, and so far, my beliefs have yet to be disproven, according to my own past experiences. Also, your definitions for lust and love were simple yet rather accurate ones, but notice that one of the definitions of love was a "sexual passion or desire", which is what I've been saying this entire time. Thus, it can be said that my theories are correct. However, another one of your definitions was "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person". I Could say that that feeling would be a result of pleasure deriving from lustful desires or actions, but I could also say that it proves your theories correct, in that love is more than lust. I don't believe that, but you don't believe me, and you make some very good points about both sides. @ Zmffksken Firstly, I would like to make a point of saying that yes, I do acknowledge your beliefs, as you do mine, and thank you for that. I just enjoy expressing my opinions and viewpoints, as do you. Secondly, it's true, the example "I Want my beloved to be happy" would not be altruistic, but I was not looking into it as deeply because I was mainly referring to "the feeling of people willingly and knowingly giving unto others" as being altruistic. I just used that specific example in quotations because it was given to me in a previous post, so no, that specific example is Not altruistic. Frankly, I don't even believe in altruism. I believe it goes against human nature. Many people, such as yourself like to associate it with love, and that is one of the major reasons that I believe dissproves its existance. The behaviour you questioned that wants "my beloved to be happy", I would not call it "love"; I would call it psychological egoism. All people are selfish; those who believe they are altruistic are just self-deceived but ultimately self-interested. That being said, I believe it should be named lust and don't believe in the existance of altruism or your definition of love, but I do acknowledge your belief that love exists and is a selfless, wonderful thing. :) |
| Neither. When I grow up I want to be a wanderer who carries a weapon!! |
| Even when I was in crowd, I was always alone |
| i say love, even though the real love i've known slipped through the cracks into the abyss of the past... love is painful, but when its good there is nothing better. |
Confucius said: Trolol i wanna grow black wings and carry a sword that changes shape, and wear some super badass slick armor.Neither. When I grow up I want to be a wanderer who carries a weapon!! |
| Love. It lasts longer and is probably more pleasurably than lust. |
| Love is what keeps your lust alive people. When your spouse is older than 40 and looks like most people do AFTER 40, it is the love of the person that makes it possible to still see them with lust in your eye. Love has little worth beyond that. Now that page one article of the 19 year old girl arrested for sex with the 14 year old boy. That's funny. Because normally it is a woman that needs to try hard to get you to say she is pretty. That young girl is not only pretty, but likely could get any 14 year old boy to sit up and beg like a dog :) |
| While not technically anime, currently I am a big fan of Hatsune Miku. At least I can go see her in concert. |
| Lust is a addiction, but Love is a natural high. |
| WHY DOES SCHOOL DAYS POPS UP IN EVERY THREAD?! |
| Anime List: http://myanimelist.net/animelist/Rodreth Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/rodreth/profile Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/Rodreth/ *** Night is the darkest just before the dawn. |
| "Lust Lust encourages men to copulate. Lust provides additional motivation to mate, but only when necessary. Sexual pleasure always encourages men to mate. Lust also encourages men to mate, but only when they have not mated recently. The alternative to temporary lust is permanently stronger sexual pleasure, which would cause men to mate too much. Sex would always be better than eating. Female lust did not evolve. Female lust did not evolve because male lust did. Only one gender needs to seek the other for mating to occur. Female do not commit crimes or spend money to stop lust. Women do not rape. Women do not need to be told no. Women are not regular customers of prostitutes or strip clubs. Women do not accumulate large collections of porno magazines. Women do desire infatuation. Women's desire to feel strong positive effect is mistakenly believed to be female lust. Lust is triggered by the absence of penile orgasm. Love There are three types of love. Maternal love which is love of a mother towards her child, which lasts for 33 months from the birth. Grandmaternal Love, which is love of a grandmother towards grandchild, also lasts for 33 months. Monogynistic Love, male's love towards female, starts after 4 months of interaction with a female representative. Lasts for 42 months." - Taken from The origin of emotions. Great book. |
LiarKAug 2, 2011 5:28 PM
| quite interesting, thanks for the read. One question, what category would love for a brother or a sister fall under? And what is the meaning for the amount of months it lasts for? |
| About the months: 33 months = Is the age of the baby when it can eat by itself, around that age babies can walk, have teeth, basically there's no need for a mother to nurse the baby. Maternal love is there to make woman take care of her child. Same thing with Grandmaternal love. 42 months = 9 months of pregnancy and 33 months for raising the child. Monogynistic love's purpose is to make the male protect the female and the child, not to leave them. After the baby is 33 months old, love ends and new cycle begins with a new baby. But that's in a world with no birth control ;) Nowadays people fill the void with promises to each other, beautiful words and etc. About incest, well it doesn't have any category. It's a psychological thing. The book talks about the level of instincts, how the nature programmed us. |
| So, women don't watch porn? |
| They do, but not as much as men. |
selective_yellow said: So, women don't watch porn? Or fart. |
LiarK said: They do, but not as much as men. All men watch the same amount of porn? ...and all women watch the same amount of porn? I am pretty sure some women watch more porn than some guys. There are also asexual dudes. edit: not to mention I do not buy anything this book claims. What kind of research was done? |
| The book is not scientific, the author is looking at people not as at individuals that act by rational and logical thinking, but as "animals" that live by nature's laws. We are all influenced by many things, many words and many stories, and on the way we try to paste those things on ourselves, decorate it with pretty meaningful words. The book washes it all away and talks about the origin, before the decorations and makeup. It's just another point of view. Which I find very entertaining and interesting and some things actually do make sense. The book is on the internet, easy to download. |
LiarKAug 2, 2011 5:50 PM
LiarK said: The book is not scientific, the author is looking at people not as at individuals that act by rational and logical thinking, but as "animals" that live by nature's laws. We are all influenced by many things, many words and many stories, and on the way we try to paste those things on ourselves, decorate it with pretty meaningful words. The book washes it all away and talks about the origin, before the decorations and makeup. It's just another point of view. But giving a specific x amount of months seems so pseudo-scientific.. it's just irritating. Fuck pseudo-science. Not to say people do not paint their lives with pretty words, however, how can he claim such bullshit like women have no lust. I do not see any support for such an idea. Perhaps he is getting confused, because in many modern societies, it is expected that women have little to no lust (if they have lust, they are whores!!)... |
| I say don't judge before you read it. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just another theory, but most people do make some harsh remarks as if they've been offended by the book. |
LiarK said: I say don't judge before you read it. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just another theory, but most people do make some harsh remarks as if they've been offended by the book. I write in a harsh way, you are free to think I'm pissed, but I am not. I can only comment on what you've quoted, so the rest of the book may have insightful points, but so far I am less than impressed. |
| This can be compared with the asking of the arguements of "Needs vs. Wants" where one can be sustain with one while be more satisfied with the other. One may argue that people will "need" love while the latter is more of a "want" since it is basically without the merit of anything of neccessity. It can also be loosely be compared to "good" and "evil" values since one happens to be a sin while the other is bore through understanding. In contrast, one may be cured with the other temporarily, seeing that forms of lust are actually sold as a form of business either visual, audio, or even partaking in person. One may never see love but can be equally be pleased by lust seeing that lust does not have any immediate repricutions or risk to it, while love must be something created between two different people. In this case, lust is more of a temporary agreement. Perhaps the reputation between the two may cause others to choose one or the other based on the premise it gives. This of course can go either way depending on the type of person's desires, which may also be a form of lust, even if the answer may be love. And that itself is a form of lust since it brings untruthful feelings of satisfaction with not being honest in order to comprimise their own honesty. But others may wonder; can lust be the creation of love? Desires of powerful feelings towards another may create a mutual understanding and further create the love that may not have been expected. Therefore there is arguably no possiblity for both to exist between two people at the same time. The only comparison to love and lust at the same time is in a numeric or qualitative value, such as look, size, or monitary worth. When one has love and desires something else, the love is gone and lust has once again emerged. Perfection or bettering one's situation is always going to be lust. A person being choosy between desires will always look for the better choice while rejecting the lesser. At the same time, the one rejected may create a situational status in their thought process to either avoid or change the anomality that caused their unlikely dismissal at the time, either in a progressive, recessive, or aggressive way. To the one choosing though, this is not always a bad thing entirely. The idea of lust is to find one with such high compatibility that other issues may become trivial. Once admitting though, the factor of lust is gone and love is created. But at the same time, the other is now in charge of lust to look for the quaility of said person is looking for as well. As in a business transaction, if both parties are satisfied with the other's understandings, love between two people can be said to be established. Again comparing to a business transaction, the understandings can also be a temporary agreement and becomes lust, seeing that there is no understanding in a form of attracting both together. As in other situations, love may not even exist and lust is the only thing that drives people day by day, not only in a sexual manner, but in satisfying things such as ego. As long as that satisfaction is there, the lust of something can be neverending as long as the drive for that desire is still there. Many may say this could be evolved to dangerous obsessive behavior and may even come resort to stalking, but it can also be said that this could just be acting out of "deep love" for someone and could be acknowledged as showing this intense love in a direct way. Oh, by the way... I'd rather it be love, but there has to be something to lust about first. |
| In my experience, i've had girlfriends that experienced raw sexual lust. Good times lol |
| Personally, I don't really think the question is supposed to be, "Which worked out best for you?" Yet, most of you are taking it that way. Sure, lust is fun, you can do whatever you want, no strings attached - but it wears out quicker than you think. Next thing you know, guy or girl number one is now guy or girl number twenty-four and you're still counting up. I know, in some cases, it could just be one person - but, really, what do you get out of it besides a little release every now and then? That doesn't really sound as entertaining as most of those who answered "lust" make it out to be. And, honestly, lust isn't really that easy to begin with. To you it may just be simple and strictly for fun, to them it may become something more. There could still be drama involved. Something bad could still happen, and that's something unavoidable no matter what you think of it as or what you look for in a relationship like that. Love, on the other hand, is just as bad - and - good. Love doesn't always result in marriage, for one, and marriage doesn't always turn out in divorce... And divorce doesn't always mean you're knee-deep in shit. If you're dating or marrying someone who has the potential to be mean or turn out to be one of those people who give you crap for something like that, that is your decision. In other words, you asked for it. Now, if they don't, on the other hand, it won't - as long as you're not one of those people yourself. In reality, it's your decision whether or not it works. If you try your best to keep it going and you've picked someone who has an equal amount of motivation to get your relationship going - you probably won't have a problem, it's not like you have - no - control whatsoever over your own actions and who you choose to tangle yourself up with when it comes down to that. In the end, it's all up to you. If you aren't dumb and the person you're dating isn't dumb, love is probably a better - emotion - to go with. If you are, then have right at the pointless sex which will only last you a little while and won't ever really help when it comes down to not feeling alone or completely isolated. It's not even that love has to be romantic, or completely breathtaking. It can still be casual, it can still be boring, it can still be normal - it's just an emotion and an excuse for companionship, and, might I add, one of the best ones out there. Suffice to say it's all in your little head. If you choose to be negative about it - you really have to be going out of your way to do so. If you choose to be positive about it, woohoo. Good for you. And I choose love. Because I'm a dreamer and rather not shit on everything with "Omg, it never works out," even if I have yet to be in a relationship that worked out perfectly how I'd wanted it to. c: |
| Lust, naturally. |
| *sings terribly* "What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me... No more." |
  |
| I abstain from both. They require too much time and attention, and offer too little benefits. |
   |
KyuuAL said: I dunno. Ask yourself that question on this article: http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/middlesex_cty/babysitter-charged-with-sex-assault Ahahaha, that's hilarious. XD Um, anyway~ I'd like to have both, but if I had to choose, then I'd pick love. |
deadoptimist said: Though I think shit-flinging should also have standards - no personal, no behind the scenes. |
LiarK said: I'm sure women lust just as much as men (if not just a little less), but you have to take into account that unlike men, it's different for women; the reason there's more male rapists than female rapists, for example, is obviously because males don't have to worry about getting pregnant. Women would."Lust Lust encourages men to copulate. Lust provides additional motivation to mate, but only when necessary. Sexual pleasure always encourages men to mate. Lust also encourages men to mate, but only when they have not mated recently. The alternative to temporary lust is permanently stronger sexual pleasure, which would cause men to mate too much. Sex would always be better than eating. Female lust did not evolve. Female lust did not evolve because male lust did. Only one gender needs to seek the other for mating to occur. Female do not commit crimes or spend money to stop lust. Women do not rape. Women do not need to be told no. Women are not regular customers of prostitutes or strip clubs. Women do not accumulate large collections of porno magazines. Women do desire infatuation. Women's desire to feel strong positive effect is mistakenly believed to be female lust. Lust is triggered by the absence of penile orgasm. Love There are three types of love. Maternal love which is love of a mother towards her child, which lasts for 33 months from the birth. Grandmaternal Love, which is love of a grandmother towards grandchild, also lasts for 33 months. Monogynistic Love, male's love towards female, starts after 4 months of interaction with a female representative. Lasts for 42 months." - Taken from The origin of emotions. Great book. Of course, I'm not a woman so I can't say that to be fact, but I'm sure it's something like that. |
 |
| I much prefer some lust with my love and love with my lust. |
| -animeS - The plural of anime is anime. More than one deer is still deer. There is no damn "s". -epic |ˈepik| noun•a work portraying heroic deeds/adventures covering an long period of time - adjective • heroic/grand in scale or character Active Military, Prior Service, and Veteran's Anime Club http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=25937&time=1299710079 |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |