Lust: Confused Love?Lust: Confused Love?LUST: CONFUSED LOVE?The term “lust” as described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a follows: 1) “AnIntense sexual desire.”(mariam-webster 428) But can this be the only definitions of something we all have inside of us? NO! Lust is more than a desire and yes, it does have mostly to do with the sexual side of all of us but lust can be more than just a desire it can be a place of mind or at least a place you want to be. First let’s go to the history of such a word, it comes from Middle English, old English from the word “desire” (Muffin 1). It is unclear how a word such as desire turned into lust, but welcome to the English language! Lust is also more than pure sexual desire it can be for power, appreciation or any thing else you really want or, in your mind, need.
1) “A state of mind, state of things, pleasure, or power
which you desire to give or to give to others*[Johannes 1e and 1f]. Some people, especially in Sweden, are still referred to as being able, or sexually stimulated and not fully aware of how they are actually affected. This is also how the term ‘lust’ is often confused or misused by some, who think this is just “lust” for themselves or others, sometimes actually they say that they are able or stimulated. To quote one of our ‘favorite’ writers in Sweden, the word is ‘spare’. What was the meaning of the expression ‘spare’ you asked? Spare means not available to the person you are sexually interested in. So, spare was a kind of lust, when they were having their fun! But in fact even if he or she can’t provide that, a spare could be one who loves, loves, loves to be with someone other, or with the individual who is interested in the person, or just one who is interested in love for the person and desire in the relationship.” 2) “(Love for) one to be able to give one another the respect of their own freedom.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““” And, in short, one can give an other one of their own or partners the respect they deserve?‡I ask you if it’s necessary for you to ask them a question. Why can’t their partner do this. Is it because they want to stay together with others or am not ready? Why can’t we ask him or her a number? Should or should not they make the commitment to keep themselves in the act of giving that affection to another person, even if it means doing so while in love with that relationship partner or partner of theirs?” 3) “(Love for) one to be able to give the other the freedom to keep the freedom of the relationship.‡(johannes-webster 430) The term ‘love for’ is used loosely to refer to those who want to make others feel their love. They are not interested in getting out, but the desire can be to release or not feel the love, even though they could be expressing it to either of them. And let that be clear, many of those who are attracted to someone who has other partners can also freely give their love for that person. Most of them actually do not want either of them to leave but rather to express their love more freely. This is not an ‘ideological’ or ‘symbolic’ love because it’s there
1) “A state of mind, state of things, pleasure, or power
which you desire to give or to give to others*[Johannes 1e and 1f]. Some people, especially in Sweden, are still referred to as being able, or sexually stimulated and not fully aware of how they are actually affected. This is also how the term ‘lust’ is often confused or misused by some, who think this is just “lust” for themselves or others, sometimes actually they say that they are able or stimulated. To quote one of our ‘favorite’ writers in Sweden, the word is ‘spare’. What was the meaning of the expression ‘spare’ you asked? Spare means not available to the person you are sexually interested in. So, spare was a kind of lust, when they were having their fun! But in fact even if he or she can’t provide that, a spare could be one who loves, loves, loves to be with someone other, or with the individual who is interested in the person, or just one who is interested in love for the person and desire in the relationship.” 2) “(Love for) one to be able to give one another the respect of their own freedom.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““” And, in short, one can give an other one of their own or partners the respect they deserve?‡I ask you if it’s necessary for you to ask them a question. Why can’t their partner do this. Is it because they want to stay together with others or am not ready? Why can’t we ask him or her a number? Should or should not they make the commitment to keep themselves in the act of giving that affection to another person, even if it means doing so while in love with that relationship partner or partner of theirs?” 3) “(Love for) one to be able to give the other the freedom to keep the freedom of the relationship.‡(johannes-webster 430) The term ‘love for’ is used loosely to refer to those who want to make others feel their love. They are not interested in getting out, but the desire can be to release or not feel the love, even though they could be expressing it to either of them. And let that be clear, many of those who are attracted to someone who has other partners can also freely give their love for that person. Most of them actually do not want either of them to leave but rather to express their love more freely. This is not an ‘ideological’ or ‘symbolic’ love because it’s there
1) “A state of mind, state of things, pleasure, or power
which you desire to give or to give to others*[Johannes 1e and 1f]. Some people, especially in Sweden, are still referred to as being able, or sexually stimulated and not fully aware of how they are actually affected. This is also how the term ‘lust’ is often confused or misused by some, who think this is just “lust” for themselves or others, sometimes actually they say that they are able or stimulated. To quote one of our ‘favorite’ writers in Sweden, the word is ‘spare’. What was the meaning of the expression ‘spare’ you asked? Spare means not available to the person you are sexually interested in. So, spare was a kind of lust, when they were having their fun! But in fact even if he or she can’t provide that, a spare could be one who loves, loves, loves to be with someone other, or with the individual who is interested in the person, or just one who is interested in love for the person and desire in the relationship.” 2) “(Love for) one to be able to give one another the respect of their own freedom.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““” And, in short, one can give an other one of their own or partners the respect they deserve?‡I ask you if it’s necessary for you to ask them a question. Why can’t their partner do this. Is it because they want to stay together with others or am not ready? Why can’t we ask him or her a number? Should or should not they make the commitment to keep themselves in the act of giving that affection to another person, even if it means doing so while in love with that relationship partner or partner of theirs?” 3) “(Love for) one to be able to give the other the freedom to keep the freedom of the relationship.‡(johannes-webster 430) The term ‘love for’ is used loosely to refer to those who want to make others feel their love. They are not interested in getting out, but the desire can be to release or not feel the love, even though they could be expressing it to either of them. And let that be clear, many of those who are attracted to someone who has other partners can also freely give their love for that person. Most of them actually do not want either of them to leave but rather to express their love more freely. This is not an ‘ideological’ or ‘symbolic’ love because it’s there
Lust to me is a place of mind and not just desire, lust is that spot of the brain where you think “Jeez, if only I could have great hair like him”, or, “I just wish that girl would look at me!” I believe this is better than the dictionaries’ definition because just looking at the sexual side of it can misconstrue the meaning of it.
Confusion among most people is that when they think they “love” someone, it just might be lust. This happens more than people think. “I Love you” is much easier to say than, “I lust you a lot”, because if you said that to your girlfriend she might not be too happy that you only want (or think about) sex from her. This is because lust is and always will be associated with pure sex.
The reality is that most relationships are based around the physical appearances and not emotion grit. “Love” in the dictionary has something to do with lust but is so much more, love is an emotion bond, an unceasing emotional connection that can be attacked over and over again without giving up ground. Lust or a ‘crush” if you will, is usually formed with little or no chance of a relationship.
Weighted love has been around since the Shakespeare’s day. This can be seen in many of his plays, but these crushes often turn into obsession, which is not good for anyone. An obsession in my opinion is a crush that has been formed too long without the crush being informed of the other parties’ true feeling in this matter. People often want what they can’t have and want more and more, this may be called the “Grass in Greener Syndrome”. Meaning what ever they have is better than yours.
I’d like to give you some real life scenarios that have played out to people I know. These accounts are from friends of mine and will remain anonymous to protect the innocent and the well, not so innocent.
Example 1: Mr. X met a girl on the train, after knowing her for a couple of hours they had “relations”. Now Mrs. Y feels obligated to say “I love you” because, (of course), people only in “love” have sex. Now Mr. X is going to say it in return, as not to offend this girl. This is one way lust has turned into “love”. Now Mr. X & Mrs. Y is living a lie, they both are faking more feeling towards each other than they really have.
Example 2: Mr. X has a girlfriend for a year (yea, he’s a stud!) while they are going on their one year anniversary, he tells Mrs. Y that he loves her because in his mind two people can not be together for a year and not have some love, that being the emotion of sex and romance(Forrester 1), which is true to dictionary form, but this is not love because Mr. X has another one year anniversary to Mrs. Y’s sister in a few days. Moreover no one who cheats on their significant other is really in love with them. Cheating in itself is a form of lust; no one cheats on their partner to “talk”.
So lust is an almost love, either way they are close, but no cigar! Lust can be for more than mere flesh, the lust for power drives us all, that’s why we go to school and find good paying jobs. People might say “I lust sure, for money not power.” This may be the case but with power comes money. I can not recall too many people, other than the occasional lottery winner, who have money and no power to back it up with.
Lust for power has been instilled for us since child birth, the deficient of some thing better, but not always should lust be looked at in a bad light, it has powers to make us do so much. Lust fuels