Love vs lust

i have never been through to say... :cry:
:lol:
but seen many cases which has only LOVE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha

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

---

My old crush....i liked him before seeing his face....and once i saw it...i thought..OMG what an ugly dude! but still i liked him. crush is not always lust :roll:

but now i'm laughing at myself for liking him... :lol: ...i dont know why... :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssanjinika

what is a momentary crush lamby??
Just a pure affection for another person..without any thought of spending time with that person?U mean to tell me that when ur infatuated with a person u dont give anythot to spending the rest of ur life with that person? And if u do ..what do u propose to be doing for the rest of ur life with that person?Initial Attraction based on sight is a form of physical attraction rite?Neways a crush cannot be classified as love rite?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssanjinika

my 2 cents..:)

of course love can exist without lust..that is the love u have for ur parents,siblings,friends etc...but love for a person's bf,gf,husband,wife,partner has to have some lust thrown in.

---

But SJ, We are not discussing about Love (Anbu).. but Love(Kaadhal). I do agree with you points. Infact, you are bang on target :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssanjinika

They can be as old 80 and still feel that elusive emotion.IMO lust is any need to touch another person.It def could be just the holding of hands or an arm around the shoulder.This feeling is special to couples.One usually does not do that to ur parents or siblings.Its reserved to that one special person in your life.I think that is lust too in a way.I also think this lust is what differenciates all other relationships from that of a husband and wife/gf and bf/partners :).

---

:clap: :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwarpet_andavan

Love might initially appear to be without lust. However, nature (biology) has different plans. Lust is dormant in the cases where love appears to be without lust, just waiting to surface given the right stimuli, environment and mindset. At a subconscious level, lust is always there. Both are different, but while lust can obviously exist without love, in the case of love, (the repressed) lust eventually catches up.

---

:clap: :clap:

Check it how is this...

"Love without lust is waste
Lust without love is taste "
:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanguine Sridhar

Check it how is this...

"Love without lust is waste
Lust without love is taste "
:roll:

---

Is it ur own phrase? :lol:

Both the lines are contradictory in their own way :lol:

NO Selva .....wat way do u say they are contrdictory ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingleguy

NO Selva .....wat way do u say they are contrdictory ?

---

Love without lust ===> Love alone ==> Love is waste

Lust without love ==> Lust alone ==> Lust is taste.

This is what he meant. Hope u get it. :D

:clap: :clap: Got that :)
point taken ;-)

Probably he meant in another way ;-) saying Without Lust Love is waste and without love, lust is just taste ....

This stands as the corrrect meaning of the sentence ... but i appreciate ur reading between the lines selva ;-) Good goin !