Lust VS Passion

[mkgal1]

I agree to an extent that lust is selfish. When I lust after my husband, it is entirely because he pleases me sexually. I lust after him because I want to be sexually satisfied. Likewise, he lusts after me because I please him sexually. However, the key factor imo is that our lust is based on love, so it's not just physical gratification, like a one night stand. We are united in marriage, in love, in friendship, so for us the lust can be selfish like that without being a negative addition to our marriage.

And it's not JUST lust that we feel, either. We feel many different things for each other, lust just happens to be one of them.



I agree that this is selfish, and I agree that love would not be driving this woman to sex. Lust/desire for nothing more than physical gratification would be. Not all lust is good, as we know from scripture. But we also know we aren't to burn with passion; "burning with passion" is, imo, lust. And that Scripture says it is better to marry than to burn with passion. So, in a situation where there is love driving the couple, lust can be a strengthening bond, imo.

The reason I feel it's important to make the distinction, is so that mostly in our minds, we can separate the two. Of course, you can name it whatever you want....but, when you say you "lust" for your husband.....and he "lusts" for you.....but, then say there is love behind it.....it isn't just about sexual gratification. There is nothing wrong about it.....you are both desiring the same thing. It's a mutual expression of love between the two of you.

I don't think I posted it in this thread.....but, in the other thread, I had said that when lust doesn't get it's way.....it quickly turns to contempt....resentment...and sometimes even acts out. That is obviously not loving.

The lines between sin and goodness are getting so blurred today. What is good is being twisted into bad...and vice versa.....I just think the best way to keep things straight, in our own minds, is to have a clear distinction between the two....and to not use the same term for something destructive as we use for something that is a beautiful gift that glorifies God.

 

[Conservativation]

Tell me Cons, how is this not an attempt to separate the physical part of sex, from the spiritual and emotional aspects? You seem to be saying that all other aspects take place BEFORE the sex act, but aren't really a part of the actual act, at all.

Originally Posted by Conservativation

All of you are over complicating what I'm saying.

From INSIDE the act of sex....the couple is having sex.....that virtue in the man is important to the women is great.....but NOW....they are having SEX, meaning she has already said cool virtue he has it, I love him....now lets have sex.....NOW....draw the line and from INSIDE that line, the virtue and the attraction its all been deemed good, they both have passed muster...they are now, virtue and all, having sex.....NOW it IS silly to talk about virtue because its already been dealt with...its already done its thing so to speak.

You are badly over complicating what Im saying.

Im picturing "squeeze my virtue harder" or something, thats why Im saying its silly. The virtue etc etc etc have done their job, and facilitated that they are now having sex...remember we are talking about SoS here, so for the one who now wants to come at me with "well not everyone having sex is having it with someone they are happy about the virtues of"......

in Sos.....the virtues may facilitate the willingness to have the sex. Along with a huge host of things.

Think about it this way...i could make a big deal out of cleanliness. We dont want to have sex with someone who hasnt bathed oin weeks and has grease in their hair an d rotted teeth. SO......therefore is cleanliness literally a PART of the sex? NO. Its a part of the willingness to HAVE sex.


Now you seem to be back pedaling, because you don't like the truth of what your perspective really is implying.

I showed you why I believe that looking at sex (during the act) as something merely physical, or if you would rather, mainly physical, or whatever, is not a productive way to see it. If one is to see it that way, they are dealing with the law of diminishing return. Our bodies are aging, even dying. They are not redeemed. If sex is thought of in terms of being there for visual beauty, then how you see visual beauty needs to change, according with the changes your spouse goes through, otherwise, as you both get closer to death, the visual parts will not be stimulating.

So how does this happen? How does one see his/her spouse as visually stimulating, as the physical body heads toward death? There can be no other way, then for there to be other significant components in your thinking about your spouse sexually, as in who they are totally, mind, body,soul, and spirit.

​

Same old cliche responses....but this time you are speaking to a vacuum. Ive stated quite clearly I was not separating anything, Ive accommodated the aging process and all that well traveled ground, between this and the other thread.

You and others seem to miss that the entire point was not to include or not include anything, it was to TALK ABOUT only one thing. Thats it. To choose to talk about only one thing has zero to do with other things being there or not. You are just so incredibly myopic on this topic that you cant get unstuck from repeating this mantra, even if its not relevant.

Its like saying lets discuss the cheese on a cheeseburger, and you say, but its not a cheeseburger without meat and bread, and I say I know that, there is cheese meat and bread, but can we please talk about the cheese, and you go off a rant about how some people deny the need for meat and bread in a cheeseburger. In fact cheese is in the name...cheeseburger, kind of like sex IS the name of sex. So, its not some moral failing to talk about sex and not include the other things, its some kind of I dont know, some mission to more than de-emphasize any and all physicality, or pleasure from sex. Its not enough for you to de-emphasize it.....you seem to find acknowledging it immoral, to judge others harshly on how they handle their own sex lives with their long term spouses, even when the spouse is harmonious with it.

Someone said right and wrong are getting confused these days. Yea...and part of this is not just permissiveness of wrong things, but this thing here where sexual narrative is reduced to fluffy quasi Biblical uber romance oriented relational emotional spiritual language. I can tell you with confidence, youd find mine and my wifes sexual dealings abhorrent, and know this, we are not the least bit wild or weird, just a normal heterosexual married couple, fairly conservative and modest, and I suspect we are like most people who have reached some multi decade equilibrium in marriage and still want to have sex together.

I dont like this tone and tenor, Its off putting and comes across highly sanctimonious, and of course it strikes directly even if unintentionally, and the way men would describe parts of their sexuality. At least Im not personally bothered by it because frankly I couldnt disagree more with this attitude, and this over complication and over spiritualization of marriage sex. Please dont quote me scripture, I know the scripture(s) I just don't agree with your emphasis.

But in the end, here in this thread you have no counterparty to your assertions, you are having a one sided discussion, because maybe its another example of wanting people to word things exactly as you'd have them word them, or else you pounce and explain how they see ONLY physical in sex etc etc, and drag out the same old stuff, the old age the this the that.

 

[McScribe]

There is another reason of course. How is it that without all the talk of trust, virtue and so on that women are clearly capable of falling in love without anything but a vague promise or of having affairs or one night stands, or any other number of sexual possibilities, and yet it is in the context of marriage that you suddenly encounter all this emotional complexity? There is part of me that doesn't buy it and looks at it with suspicion.

Because this is what leads to saying that men and some are different mentally sexually. But I really highly doubt that. I think that sex is like anything...better by God's will and better with love, honesty, integrity and cherishing, but sex is just sex. I mean honestly, no one here ever had amazing sex without being in love? Honestly?

 

[mkgal1]

There is another reason of course. How is it that without all the talk of trust, virtue and so on that women are clearly capable of falling in love without anything but a vague promise or of having affairs or one night stands, or any other number of sexual possibilities, and yet it is in the context of marriage that you suddenly encounter all this emotional complexity? There is part of me that doesn't buy it and looks at it with suspicion.

Because this is what leads to saying that men and some are different mentally sexually. But I really highly doubt that. I think that sex is like anything...better by God's will and better with love, honesty, integrity and cherishing, but sex is just sex. I mean honestly, no one here ever had amazing sex without being in love? Honestly?

A couple of things.....because you are asking a few questions. First.....I have said it before.....yes....amazing sex can be obtained...without love, but see? You even mentioned.....that happens in one night stands or brief affairs, if there is nothing else behind it---it quickly fizzles out like a roaring fire fueled only by paper & no wood. There is normally a mutual understanding that it IS just sex. One wouldn't expect commitment.....security.....reliability out of that.....all they need is someone willing and able to acquire their "goal".

When talking marriage, though.....that's a whole different ball game (so to speak). We are talking life-long......mixing financial assets.....blending decision making.....choices of where to live....what to buy....how to spend the time.....what the priorities are. With all that.....there needs to be security.....reliability....commitment.....LOVE.....compassion........concern....etc.

Why are you even TRYING to seek out sex without love is what I don't get..... ???? Read Ecclesiates......Solomon tried that.....and he said...."it's vanity....empty....nothing new under the sun.....BORING....shallow, and unfulfilling..." I honestly feel that is what prepared him for what followed next.....Song of Solomon.

 

[dallasapple]

How is it that without all the talk of trust, virtue and so on that women are clearly capable of falling in love without anything but a vague promise or of having affairs or one night stands, or any other number of sexual possibilities, and yet it is in the context of marriage that you suddenly encounter all this emotional complexity?

The above mentioned are short lived..not a lifetime committment..and with a one night satnd?The dude hasnt doen anythign to hurt her..how could he have...plus she never has to see him again..I/E with a "one night stand" she isnt expected to have sex with him 100's of time a year for 50 or 60 years.

I cant see how some one could not understand how one is complex and the other one isnt..becasue one is and one isnt LITTERALLY..She isnt investing her whole self into a one night stand..an affair? Is usually if not always the man is WHOOING her and romanicign her..he isnt ignoring her now is he?She also isnt "obligated" to have sex with him...its up to her to meet him or not..there is no "duty" to him..

And besdies that..who is assuming one night stands or even affairs that the sex is all that in the first place?..Thats not a given..It can in fact be sorely dissapointing ...

Dallas

 

[McScribe]

So is it then the feeling of HAVING to have sex that is the killjoy then?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually asking because I don't know. I still feel like a man who got mugged in a sunny meadow.

 

[mkgal1]

Oh....and something else I just realized I hadn't added.....often times, if it's a longer term thing.....that really IS without the love....trust....security, but there still IS sex.....that could have been because the woman THOUGHT he meant, "I love you.....I will be here for you....you mean the world to me.....I will never leave or break your heart....". IOW...she gave him the benefit of the doubt first. He hadn't given her any reason to doubt him.....yet.

*I said that "he said, I love you" because maybe I am old-school. I believe in the man making the declarations FIRST about what the relationsip is. In a Christian marriage....sex would be AFTER marriage....after the MAN proposed and sought the woman....not the other way around.

 

[mkgal1]

So is it then the feeling of HAVING to have sex that is the killjoy then?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually asking because I don't know. I still feel like a man who got mugged in a sunny meadow.

No.....the "killjoy" is when someone said all the "right things" in order to get what they wanted. It's betrayal. It negates ALL trust that had been formed. It's worse than not having any expectations.....or any lack of evidence that supports love. At least with a stranger....you can keep the benefit of the doubt.....betrayal has removed all doubt.

 

[Conservativation]

A couple of things.....because you are asking a few questions. First.....I have said it before.....yes....amazing sex can be obtained...without love, but see? You even mentioned.....that happens in one night stands or brief affairs, if there is nothing else behind it---it quickly fizzles out like a roaring fire fueled only by paper & no wood. There is normally a mutual understanding that it IS just sex. One wouldn't expect commitment.....security.....reliability out of that.....all they need is someone willing and able to acquire their "goal".

When talking marriage, though.....that's a whole different ball game (so to speak). We are talking life-long......mixing financial assets.....blending decision making.....choices of where to live....what to buy....how to spend the time.....what the priorities are. With all that.....there needs to be security.....reliability....commitment.....LOVE.....compassion........concern....etc.

Why are you even TRYING to seek out sex without love is what I don't get..... ???? Read Ecclesiates......Solomon tried that.....and he said...."it's vanity....empty....nothing new under the sun.....BORING....shallow, and unfulfilling..." I honestly feel that is what prepared him for what followed next.....Song of Solomon.

He isnt seeking sex without love. Thats a distraction to an otherwise interesting question.

That it wont last is kind of beside the point he is getting at, its the same point or similar i make when I use the no tell motel example.

So, a woman CAN have great physically satisfying sex without all these other things....youve agreed to that. I get it about it being temporary....the point is she CAN do it

So, sow you are married, and presumably you have some of these things, security etc etc....some women have "better" men and have more of the things, some less, some have one thing one day and a different thing the next, commitment, security, love, etc.

So, comes the conversation about needing all these things to have married sex. And like you said MK, one "bad thing" can "wipe out the good things" and ruin the mood.

You have to see , not agree, but see the point he is making, and it is not easily answered. It makes no sense to men, basically, that it becomes such and incredibly fragile and fickle thing, sex I mean, so breakable, yet in our past we know that sex, just sex, CAN be had without all that. Now its not JUST all that, its different "all thats" daily, different emphasis....etc.

You didnt feel love commitment security if you had great sex for sex sake in the past. Here is your husband, who we presume you ALSO love and are committed too, etc.

One thing thats really tough, after a man suffers infidelity from his wife, its then VERY VERY hard to reconcile all this about needing the perfect atmosphere and all, when the guy she had the affair with had to what? Rent a room and make a call? I would imagine this really bugs men afgter their wives cheat.

 

[dallasapple]

Oh....and something else I just realized I hadn't added.....often times, if it's a longer term thing.....that really IS without the love....trust....security, but there still IS sex.....that could have been because the woman THOUGHT he meant, "I love you.....I will be here for you....you mean the world to me.....I will never leave or break your heart....". IOW...she gave him the benefit of the doubt first. He hadn't given her any reason to doubt him.....yet.

Exactly...an affair is a fantasy ..reality isnt in the picture.its all dreams and anticipation of maybe more..or not..just escaping reality..

As well as with an affair there is I dare to say ALWAYS a 'spark" that chemical attraction..its documented and it doesnt take a rocket scientists to figure it out..its called "infatuation" which feels like intense LOVE..Its a ride on a chemical high our brains produce..It can last a day or a month or the longest is around 2 years..thats why its an "affair" because its short lived then it ENDS.

Its like a drug..some are even claimed to be addicted to it..thats why some people will have one after the other after the other shorter term(2 years or under) serious relationships..

But with one night stands..a lot of that I hate to say it the people involved are durnk or under some sort of influence..and I havent met many people that have 100's of one night stands a year every single year for thier entire life either..in fact not even close..In fact I think someone who does that..has SERIOUS mental issues..so you can NOT compare that to beign marreid and the sexual dynamics within it..

And its ridiculous to say just because a woman is 'capable' of having one night stand..that doesnt "jive' with her not being WILLING to have sex 1 or more times week with her husband for 60 years..you CANT compare the two..Especially when its "expected' to be wildy (or at all) passionate..That causes it to be COMPLEX not 'simple' as is a ONE night stand..a one night stand can litterally if you include the actual meeting of the person take minutes of your life and your personal "commitment"..

Dallas

 

[Conservativation]

No.....the "killjoy" is when someone said all the "right things" in order to get what they wanted. It's betrayal. It negates ALL trust that had been formed. It's worse than not having any expectations.....or any lack of evidence that supports love. At least with a stranger....you can keep the benefit of the doubt.....betrayal has removed all doubt.

OK

 

[mkgal1]

This is from the article that I linked on the first page:

Because a relationship based on lust is temporary, both partners will eventually start looking for other people to satisfy their needs. Lustful relationship could be fulfilling for a short time but they are disastrous in the long run. There are fights to no end, arguments over nothing and no respect for each other. Another noticeable difference between a loving relationship and a lustful relationship is that the latter starts with a much more passion. There are phone calls and dates that last all day long and in the beginning it seems as if there's nothing separating this couple. However, as time passes this passion dies down and their supposed love for each other gets forgotten and they start having fights and eventually break up.

People who are truly in love base their relationships on respect for each other, compromising behavior and selfless attitude. They are ready to sacrifice anything for their partner. Lustful relationship brings two people close only to have fun and both of them are selfish in their demands. They don't have any respect for their partner and don't have any commitment plans in their minds.

In order to save yourself from getting hurt you have to understand your partner's real intentions behind going out with you and showering you with gifts. Make sure you two have good plans for your future life together and that both of you stick with those plans in order to realize them.


Article Source: How To Tell The Difference Between Love And Lust

 

[dallasapple]

Yes..it is a kill joy when or if there is a frequency desparity..and the one with the higher libido starts saying "responsiblity' and "obligation". And or becomes angry and makes attempts at coersion (becoming angry..punishing..withdrawing)...

Then when attempts be made to "just do IT" like some people around here promote..then the complaints of 'wheres the passion" begins and what up with the spice?

Yep..Kill Joy..not to MENTION if the outside of marriage relations on the guys end has become LAX as in now that he has the 'cow" who is obligated and "responsible to him" to provide sex..then suddenly "romance" is the option not the rule(no need to warm her up..thats fantasy romance novel stuff)..throw in if he critisizes her or has a tendency to be verbally abusive even in mutual arguments..

Yep kill joy..no doubt about it....kills my libido..I've talked to other women who had the same 'kill joy" experiences..But it seems peopel woudl rather say shes "wrong" then just accept the fact it just is..Or lets say..O.K she is wrong..now how do you propose she is going to "muster up a little passion "..she is NOT..

Dallas

 

[Conservativation]

Oy

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly...an affair is a fantasy ..reality isnt in the picture.its all dreams and anticipation of maybe more..or not..just escaping reality..

As well as with an affair there is I dare to say ALWAYS a 'spark" that chemical attraction..its documented and it doesnt take a rocket scientists to figure it out..its called "infatuation" which feels like intense LOVE..Its a ride on a chemical high our brains produce..It can last a day or a month or the longest is around 2 years..thats why its an "affair" because its short lived then it ENDS.

Its like a drug..some are even claimed to be addicted to it..thats why some people will have one after the other after the other shorter term(2 years or under) serious relationships..

You know what's interesing.....I looked up "infatuation"....and do you know what it means? It's root word is "fatuous", which means foolish. I think it's a really accurate word, since one is under the influence of their brain chemicals and not making rational and thought out choices.....but, being ruled by those chemicals.

 

[McScribe]

Why is it automatically the man's fault? Could it not be her fault, or their fault? Is it not possible that between two perceptions of the truth that the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle?

 

[mkgal1]

Who said anything about it being the man's fault? It is generally accepted that the man proposed marriage.....right? Personally, I don't believe in women asking men to marry them. Isn't asking someone to marry you, declaring your life-long commitment to the relationship....including faithfulness? It certainly can be that she accepts, and doesn't follow through.....with him being faithful and committed.....but, we were talking in the context of what women need...and honesty....trust....and reliability were what was being disputed as a "need". IMO......men NEED that too.

 

[McScribe]

Yes..it is a kill joy when or if there is a frequency desparity..and the one with the higher libido starts saying "responsiblity' and "obligation". And or becomes angry and makes attempts at coersion (becoming angry..punishing..withdrawing)...

Then when attempts be made to "just do IT" like some people around here promote..then the complaints of 'wheres the passion" begins and what up with the spice?

Yep..Kill Joy..not to MENTION if the outside of marriage relations on the guys end has become LAX as in now that he has the 'cow" who is obligated and "responsible to him" to provide sex..then suddenly "romance" is the option not the rule(no need to warm her up..thats fantasy romance novel stuff)..throw in if he critisizes her or has a tendency to be verbally abusive even in mutual arguments..

Yep kill joy..no doubt about it....kills my libido..I've talked to other women who had the same 'kill joy" experiences..But it seems peopel woudl rather say shes "wrong" then just accept the fact it just is..Or lets say..O.K she is wrong..now how do you propose she is going to "muster up a little passion "..she is NOT..

Dallas

It goes both ways. What guy wants to try to warm up a selfish, shrieking harpy? Kind of results in a dead end street.

 

[mkgal1]

I have you on "ignore" McS......and since I can't read what you are posting in my threads, I would appreciate it if you didn't post at all on them.

 

[mkgal1]

Another noticeable difference between a loving relationship and a lustful relationship is that the latter starts with a much more passion

I think this is another reason why a clear distinction ought to be made.....to discern between what is flattery and what is honest compliments and appreciation. If passion is sought above love, as an end goal.....there is going to be lots of flattery, without really having the evidence behind it.....empty words...IOW. (Ephesians 5)