Do You Look For Love or Lust?

[PGen98]

When you're looking to find a partner, what is your first instinct -- are you looking for a physical attraction, or are you trying to find someone that you connect with mentally?

Obviously physical attraction has to play some factor in a relationship, it is inevitable; however, is that the first thing you seek out and hope to make a personal connection with that person, or do you meet someone, try to get to know them and their personality before you even consider a physical relationship?

For me, given how I was raised, I always strive to get to know someone before anything else. I can't just lust after someone, that's not how my brain works. I can be physically attracted to someone, and I do have an issue where I get very attracted and attached to women far easier than I should, but I cannot pursue that in terms of a physical sense, my brain won't let that happen without immense shame and guilt attached to that. So I look to make a mental connection first and foremost, get to know someone, really understand them as much as I can, and then see how it goes from there.

How do you approach things? Physical relationship first and build from there, or do you look to get to know someone first?

 

[gibby]

If you are looking for love then you definitely need that mental connection otherwise it is just lust imo.

Personally, that mental connection is the most important part, I wouldn't discount someone just because they are not "Brad Pitt" , for me I fall in love with someone's personality first and foremost.

It also depends on circumstances of course; you might see someone who you find physically attractive and that can be the starting point, equally you might meet someone on line for example and gain that mental connection first.

 

[PGen98]

I agree, it's hard to quantify a relationship without a mental connection as anything but lust; however, it is also possible to form a loving bond after starting out with a physical attraction. It is also entirely possible to find someone you mentally connect with online and and to form a full relationship with, absolutely.

 

[gibby]

can you be in romantic love with someone you connect with but don't find physically attractive? I think you need both.

 

[PGen98]

can you be in romantic love with someone you connect with but don't find physically attractive? I think you need both.

I do agree, you need to have both for the relationship to work; however, I do think it is possible for a mental connection to be formed without consideration of physical appeal. Much like two people who meet online and either don't share pictures or share pictures that don't reveal much about themselves, the appeal is based on personality and mental connection. That can be a form of love, but it cannot result in a full relationship unless there is a physical spark, as well.

 

[gibby]

@PGen98 I found this article that looks at infatuation V love, it seems to be related to your OP , I found it interesting.

https://www.bonobology.com/signs-infatuation-not-love/

 

[PGen98]

@PGen98 I found this article that looks at infatuation V love, it seems to be related to your OP , I found it interesting.

https://www.bonobology.com/signs-infatuation-not-love/

I appreciate that, thank you for finding this, I will absolutely give this a read!

 

[PGen98]

@PGen98 I found this article that looks at infatuation V love, it seems to be related to your OP , I found it interesting.

https://www.bonobology.com/signs-infatuation-not-love/

This is a very solid article and touches on some very good points about infatuation. Rushing through the relationship to reach the bedroom, not getting to know the other person properly, feeling like things are moving too fast, and starting to lose interest after a brief period of time are pretty good indicators of infatuation, for sure. This is a really good resource!

 

[Dave]

Lust is a fleeting moment, love is forever (true love that is). Lust is something you can get from the corner shop, love is something that finds you. Love is the most powerful force in the universe and endures.

 

[gibby]

I would also add that lust is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion to feel.

 

[Dave]

I would also add that lust is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion to feel.

Normal, agreed - healthy, I would put some caveats on that. For example there can be a lot of unhealthy emotional fallout if there is no mutually agreed separation. There are many reports of revenge, stalking and violence when lust is one-sided but the other side expects there to be more and it is not forthcoming. A lot of normality surrounding humans is not always healthy.

 

[gibby]

Normal, agreed - healthy, I would put some caveats on that. For example there can be a lot of unhealthy emotional fallout if there is no mutually agreed separation. There are many reports of revenge, stalking and violence when lust is one-sided but the other side expects there to be more and it is not forthcoming. A lot of normality surrounding humans is not always healthy.

It is a healthy emotion for the vast majority of people and it is perfectly normal.

You could apply the same to "love" people who love someone who doesn't reciprocate could also become a stalker etc etc

 

[Dave]

You could apply the same to "love" people who love someone who doesn't reciprocate

That's called unrequited love - for true love to shine both parties have to share the same love otherwise it is not true love. That's why I said that lust comes with some caveats and there are always two (or more depending on your tastes lol) who share the same feelings at the outset. Of course there is a caveat on 'love' in general in that it is possible to love someone and then fall out of love with them - hence the incredibly high numbers who divorce. But lust carries more risk, depending on the people involved. My point was that lust alone can be a dangerous entity if mutually agreed parting is not forthcoming. Unrequited love can also be a strain on the one whose advances are not reciprocated and depending on their mental and emotional state will determine their course of action.

All of this just depends on your point of view and views can vary

 

[gibby]

That's called unrequited love - for true love to shine both parties have to share the same love otherwise it is not true love. That's why I said that lust comes with some caveats and there are always two (or more depending on your tastes lol) who share the same feelings at the outset. Of course there is a caveat on 'love' in general in that it is possible to love someone and then fall out of love with them - hence the incredibly high numbers who divorce. But lust carries more risk, depending on the people involved. My point was that lust alone can be a dangerous entity if mutually agreed parting is not forthcoming. Unrequited love can also be a strain on the one whose advances are not reciprocated and depending on their mental and emotional state will determine their course of action.

All of this just depends on your point of view and views can vary

I don't agree that lust carries more "risk" or alone could be "dangerous" .You will find that the numbers of women who are killed or abused are by far by their partners or husbands, i.e the ones they were apparently in "love" with and who "loved" them rather than someone who's advances they rejected.

 

[Foxy]

Friendship first, then love.

 

[Dave]

I don't agree that lust carries more "risk" or alone could be "dangerous"

Try looking up on Google "is lust dangerous" here's an example:

Lust literally means over-desire. It is when you take something that is good, twist it, and add cravings to it so you are consumed until you are gratified. When we speak of lust as it relates to relationships with the opposite sex, it can be defined this way – when a person’s body is far more important to you than his or her soul.

https://www.thehopeline.com/why-lust-is-destructive/

You will a whole ton of articles on the subject and none that give lust a favourable viewpoint. Lust may be normal, but it's certainly not healthy. If you disagree then it would be better to agree to disagree otherwise this will be an unending discussion.

 

[gibby]

Try looking up on Google "is lust dangerous" here's an example:

https://www.thehopeline.com/why-lust-is-destructive/

You will a whole ton of articles on the subject and none that give lust a favourable viewpoint. Lust may be normal, but it's certainly not healthy. If you disagree then it would be better to agree to disagree otherwise this will be an unending discussion.

Try looking up the figures on google on how many women are killed by partners who "love" them.
I am stating my opinion you can disagree if you want but I am free to state it. I don't have to agree with you when I don't think you are right. I do find some men don't like it when women disagree with them. oh well.

 

[Dave]

Try looking up the figures on google on how many women are killed by partners who "love" them.
I am stating my opinion you can disagree if you want but I am free to state it. I don't have to agree with you when I don't think you are right. I do find some men don't like it when women disagree with them. oh well.

Firsty, I am not disagreeing with you because you are a woman, in fact I had no idea you were a woman, so you are basing your assessment of my replies from a false premise. I have no axe to grind.

Secondly, I am just as entitled as you are to disagree with your assessment of lust vs love.

Thirdly, women (or men) who are killed by their partners is not done out of 'love' it is done because there is an absence of love, respect, consideration, compassion, empathy and so on. It's a mental state that has gone awry for whatever reason, but it's certainly not love. But then this debate was not about people who kill their partners - this was something you introduced to bolster your own viewpoint.

Lust may be a normal human trait and as long as it stays within a person's own mind it can also be considered as a normal emotion, but that changes when the thought is enacted upon - and that is the point that is accepted by psychologists who know a lot more about the human psyche than we will ever know. Some people have 'need to have' that is driven by lust and once that need is fulfilled they move on to their next conquest with little or no thought for the trail of emotional devastation they may leave behind and that is not healthy by any means, not for men or women.

Being a woman doesn't always make you right, just as being a man doesn't always make me right. We just have different viewpoints and you will not accept mine as being right just as I won't accept yours as being right. As I said in my last post, we need to agree to disagree and move on otherwise this just becomes a circular argument with no viable end point and just creates disharmony that other members have to witness.

 

[gibby]

Firsty, I am not disagreeing with you because you are a woman, in fact I had no idea you were a woman, so you are basing your assessment of my replies from a false premise. I have no axe to grind.

Secondly, I am just as entitled as you are to disagree with your assessment of lust vs love.

Thirdly, women (or men) who are killed by their partners is not done out of 'love' it is done because there is an absence of love, respect, consideration, compassion, empathy and so on. It's a mental state that has gone awry for whatever reason, but it's certainly not love. But then this debate was not about people who kill their partners - this was something you introduced to bolster your own viewpoint.

Lust may be a normal human trait and as long as it stays within a person's own mind it can also be considered as a normal emotion, but that changes when the thought is enacted upon - and that is the point that is accepted by psychologists who know a lot more about the human psyche than we will ever know. Some people have 'need to have' that is driven by lust and once that need is fulfilled they move on to their next conquest with little or no thought for the trail of emotional devastation they may leave behind and that is not healthy by any means, not for men or women.

Being a woman doesn't always make you right, just as being a man doesn't always make me right. We just have different viewpoints and you will not accept mine as being right just as I won't accept yours as being right. As I said in my last post, we need to agree to disagree and move on otherwise this just becomes a circular argument with no viable end point and just creates disharmony that other members have to witness.

If that is the case then why do you keep coming back and arguing with me .
lust is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion if it didn’t exist then neither would the human race . Trying to turn lust into something that is dangerous like you are trying to do is quite frankly wrong .

 

[Dave]

If that is the case then why do you keep coming back and arguing with me .

I could say the same to you. Discussing this with you is pointless because our viewpoints are poles apart, so as I have said 'twice' let's agree to disagree and move on.