Love vs lust

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Selva .... yengayo poiteenga ;-)

Thanks great machi :D and vasanth :D

Selva...thanks for your response. I think I've confused my self even more now... :roll: ...but this is what I think:

First, I don't think we can separate the two - I think True LOVE is based on LUST, friendship, trust and many other things. And I think lust is a bigger part of love in the initial stages of love between a couple. Over time...during marriage years, other components such as trust, beliefs and values, friendship, etc will dominate. Yet, lust still exists - like you said, simply kissing on the forehead, holding hands, staying close are lustful, and it happens because even at old age, they are still very much in love.

I think lust is natural for all of us - we can feel lust towards more than one person over our life time. What I mean by lust is the desire to talk, see, be around that individual - not physical relationship. But in the end, lust becomes love (part of) with only one special person and you take it a step further by expressing your love and establishing a relationship. I feel lust is SIMILAR to crush, but they not the same. Crush is a simple feeling of attraction towards someone (ie. 'he's cute...i really like him') - nothing like lust. Then again, I believe crush can lead to lust, and eventually become part of love. And it all depends on the individual and his/her circumstances.

I hope this makes some sense... :roll: .... :oops:

So nobody agrees love can exist with the concern person IWTHOUT LUST>????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha

So nobody agrees love can exist with the concern person IWTHOUT LUST>????????????

---

No..SP, several people have already accepted your view. :D

Ofcouse a very few people like selva view it in a different way :)

Selva,

Somehow I just can't accept your arguement that Love can exist only with Lust OR rather it starts off with LUST.

When a person is in true love with the other person he sees to that there is no pain to the other person to the extent to give up sex if it pains the other person, This happend in one of my fiend's life :). Lateron then went to Gynacologist and set things right.

The basic definition of Love is the willingness to give oneself without expecting anything in return, if there is any expectation then there is no love there. In your case Love starts when the partners are satisfied with their basic needs.

You arguement may be acceptable when young people are in love, between the age group 18 - 27 years or so. For late starters in love your arguement may not be valid.

But what is your Signature Selva?? :))
I can make out you are a yet to be married young Man, which endorses your arguements.

chappani

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chappani

Somehow I just can't accept your arguement that Love can exist only with Lust OR rather it starts off with LUST.

---

I beg to differ. You are viewing lust in the hightest point of it. There are also small things in love, that proves the existance of lust. I hope u might have read my definition on that baby case. Even if a pair walks along the street, keeping their hands together, then there will be some portion of lust associated with that love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chappani

When a person is in true love with the other person he sees to that there is no pain to the other person to the extent to give up sex if it pains the other person, This happend in one of my fiend's life :). Lateron then went to Gynacologist and set things right.

---

Sorry friend. I don't want to discuss whether sexual life has anything associated with love / lust. IMHO, As per the definition, of ancient works, IF WE LOOK AT A PERSON WITH INTEREST, THAT ITSELF IS TAKEN AS THE LOSS OF VIRTUE. In such case, if a pair (who don't have the passibility of sexual life), look into their eyes and do painless things, then that will show the existence of LOVE + LUST.

See, Parasuraama's father asked him to kill his mother just coz that she viewed at Indra for a moment. hope I am clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chappani

The basic definition of Love is the willingness to give oneself without expecting anything in return, if there is any expectation then there is no love there. In your case Love starts when the partners are satisfied with their basic needs.

---

My friend, I never said anything against Love. But the moment Love(kaathal) starts between a pair, that triggers the lust part associated with it. That doesn't mean that lust+love combination expects everything from the other partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chappani

You arguement may be acceptable when young people are in love, between the age group 18 - 27 years or so. For late starters in love your arguement may not be valid.

---

No.. IT can be equally applied to old people also. Refer my above example. Lust doesn't imply only the sexual contact. Even minor versions of lust do matter a lot in love life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chappani

But what is your Signature Selva?? :))
I can make out you are a yet to be married young Man, which endorses your arguements.

---

My signature meaning:
----------------------

"I am a hero for you babe 8-) ., but a villan for your dresses :twisted: "


------------------

Chappani,
Ofcourse I am not married. (I am not sure whether I will do it in the future).

But just coz that I am unmarried, that doesn't mean that I have not gone through the proess that u have mentioned. :)