Love & Lust

[alcurad]

you know, that's not half bad. no beating the bush round like i do, hmm.

 

[Salahudeen]

lol you just spin my head bro with all them big words and complicated lines.

< feels unclever after reading your posts

 

[alcurad]

not that much bro =_= sometimes i read too much philosophy for my own peace of mind..

 

[Snowflake]

eh =_=, i see i didn't make my words clearer, sorry.

what I meant was, in defining human actions, there are certain values that humans follow in all societies and civilizations:
they all begin with values that govern the need for reproduction, or more precisely the values of taste-beautiful, not beautiful and whatever lies in between-

then there are values concerning sustenance-good, bad-

then values of thought-truth and non truth-

then work-freedom and its opposite, or choice and no choice-

and finally existence itself, defined as the collection of all previous values, in short their amalgamation defines our existence. and they are quite hierarchical, for example, you can't have freedom of choice until you can differentiate between good and bad, and so on.

thus the first from which all the others proceed is the values of taste, the values that majorly guide sexuality and restrain/channel it, not that those values are only 'sexual', but they depend on it/are concerned with it.
we keep evolving, from children to half adults to fully mature, and so do our societies, from primitive and almost entirely dependent on the weather and geography to farming and permanent or seasonal villages, to cities and finally to full fledged 'civilizations'.

in that evolution, it all begins with the most basic and primal instincts, of which we call 'Fitrah'. this fitrah-if properly preserved- leads us through that five-tiered hierarchy of values, all beginning with the instincts of survival and reproduction, which decidedly take a sexual overtone in the beginning.

not that the existential values-of which concern God and that which is beyond humans-are sexual in nature, but they do depend on it since it all begins there. love is harder to pinpoint, since it involves many of them, certainly love of God is decidedly different than loving a spouse or child, but certainly there is overlap since it is all 'love'.

I hope that made sense.

It's not anymore clearer than the previous post. It sounds like the ramblings of a senile old professor to me. Why don't you just read the Qur'an. At least it makes sense. :mmokay:

abu_musab461 Re: Love & Lust

People often fall into the trap of thinking in the western mentality that lust is wrong and evil and lowly etc...

Because lust as we know it has always been seen out of marriage-

zina, adutary, homosexuality etc

Lust in marriage is permissible.

It might be a case that a husband and wife both feel lust for one another and this is good and pure.

not lowly and impure.

No, I don't agree. Desire for someone you love isn't lust. Love is borne in the heart. Lust is a physical condition like hunger/thirst. It never stems from the heart, always from physical need. If there is lust in marriage, yes it's permissable, but it isn't love.

 

[جوري]

^^ so you mean that sexual acts are borne of base need rather than love?
I think you can espouse love and lust without having it be a one sided self-indulgent act..
by the way I am kind of hating the direction of this thread, but I am amused by the thoughts of others on it, including that of the OP.. since I find the very definition faulty, and I have addressed why in my previous post here...

 

[alcurad]

I think you have chosen to define love in a very narrow margin.
love and lust are very separate animals -- further it would be interesting to see you take that definition and see how it applies to parents, siblings, children etc..

...love is a highly evolved, refined emotion...

yes, ditto to above.

 

[dilkadr]

I think love is a ghost.

Everyone talks about it.

Nobody founds it.

Keep contributing your valuable ideas.

 

[Snowflake]

Gossamer skye;1199202]^^ so you mean that sexual acts are borne of base need rather than love?

No, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that lust is borne from primal instinct whereas the desire to be physically close to the person you love is borne from love itself. I believe physical desire for the person you love is miles apart from lust. To me they are totally two different things.

I think you can espouse love and lust without having it be a one sided self-indulgent act..

I think the disagreements here are a result of each of us having their own definition of what lust means to us. For me love and physical desire for the person you love isn't defined as lust.

by the way I am kind of hating the direction of this thread

lol yup.. I think this arguement can go on til the cows come home and beyond.. I don't think I have anything left to say here.

I think love is a ghost.

Everyone talks about it.

Nobody founds it.

Keep contributing your valuable ideas.

That's just your opinion bro.



over & out...

 

[syilla]

:salamext:

How do you answer your spouse...after doing 'it'. Is it because of lust or because of love :hmm:

I'll not be talking to him...if he said it is because of lust... huhuhu

 

[Ali_008]

Ahem, I think, firstly, the thread starter opened this thread to just discuss whats between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. We started talking about our families, pets etc and we went off-topic there. I hope this example helps all. When I walk on the road and I see a hoarding where a girl is lying on a car with her hair open, scanty clothing and kilos of make up, I'd want that girl. She'll make me forget everything and just think of her for sometime. Now why do I want her here? Whats the feeling thats driving me in this case? LUST! LUST! LUST!:raging: :raging: :raging:

Lust can pop up anywhere. Love takes time. Loves like a beautiful snake, it stays calm in his circle, waits for you to get close and while admiring its beauty you reach his target and then he strikes, strangling you from all sides. You're helpless here, you can't escape and you can't even blame anyone because you shouldn't have come close to it in the first place when you knew its a snake.mg:

To those who experienced it, it does; to those who haven't, it does not. It's simply seeing things through various perspectives. From one who has 'loved' -whatever that may be- they know that love exists, and it takes the form of a person, an object or whatever.
... And from the perspective of one who hasn't loved, 'love' simply is a word that's spelt with an el, an o, a vee and an ee. That's all it is. Perhaps it's out there in the atmosphere swinging amogst the many air molecules, invisible to the naked eye.

Love results in lust. I think. To differentiate between the two, simple lust gives a man a boner, and makes a woman go crazy. Love makes a woman emo, and a man on his knees asking for her hand in marriage.

Firstly sis, you wrote exactly what I wanted to say. Secondly, awesome signature.