3 ms·

We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor, if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there hav

We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor, if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? The sexual attraction (lust) is a condition that caused the love to sprout in the first place. I'm not saying there aren't other possible ways for people to get together, but we're specifically talking about cases where people get together because they're attracted to each other (the condition). I think what you're wanting to say is that a conditioned love (for example, one that starts with lust) can become an unconditioned love. But I don't think you can separate the cause and effect like that, because the memories, experiences and identity shared between the parties is still going to rest as a factor for them staying together for a "unconditional" love to take place, and hence its not truly unconditional: it's based on something.

mistermann 7y ago
> We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor Oh, I thought we were talking about unconditional love in general. > if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? Afaik sexual attraction isn't a pre-requisite for love in general, let alone unconditional love. All this considered, I'm still unclear on why unconditional love and lust cannot co-exist. I can see how uni-directional/unfulfilled/non-reciprocal lust could in some cases diminish the love felt by one party (this would be a case where it isn't isn't actually unconditional love), but the part I don't understand is that unfulfilled lust must do this, even if the lust is strong.
- tokenpreneur 7y ago
  I'm not making the case that sexual attraction is a necessary pre-requisite for love. I'm making the case that in a love where sexual attraction is the pre-requisite, that love is not unconditioned. I meet a woman. She's beautiful. I'm attracted to her. She's attracted to me. We do the deed. Multiple times. Girlfriend. Boyfriend. Get married. We keep doing the deed. Multiple times. Eventually, we stop doing the deed, grow old. Now we say we love each other unconditionally. But how can we say that, do we now live in a vacuum that we're going to ignore the entire history of our past and that our sexual attraction (or simply, our enjoyment of each other) caused the dominoes to fall the way they did? I can't say to this woman when I'm old: "I would have loved you even if you weren't hot when we were younger" because this is an untestable claim and ontologically absurd since the "you" (from my perception of her) she was when she was younger is inseparable from how "hot" I found her.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > I'm making the case that in a love where sexual attraction is the pre-requisite, that love is not unconditioned. Ah ok that's the misunderstanding then, because earlier you said "If there's lust involved, it's by definition not unconditional", which is obviously something different so I got confused. > Eventually, we stop doing the deed, grow old. Now we say we love each other unconditionally. But how can we say that, do we now live in a vacuum that we're going to ignore the entire history of our past and that our sexual attraction (or simply, our enjoyment of each other) caused the dominoes to fall the way they did? "But how can we say that"....well, that's been my question all along, I was hoping you could explain how it isn't possible to love unconditionally in this situation, or one where lust is involved. But now that you've provided extra constraints and context (where sexual attraction is a pre-requisite, and that you are speaking from your individual experience) I think the confusion is cleared up. > I can't say to this woman when I'm old: "I would have loved you even if you weren't hot when we were younger" because this is an untestable claim Exactly, as is saying unconditional love is not possible in the presence of lust - it would require a means of knowing the emotional feelings (something notoriously difficult to measure) of all people who have been in love throughout history.
    - tokenpreneur 7y ago
      > Ah ok that's the misunderstanding then, because earlier you said "If there's lust involved, it's by definition not unconditional", which is obviously something different so I got confused. I didn't really say anything different, I was replying to an OP who said that he is participating in a love which is both unconditional and lustful, and I said that it can't be both. You can't simultaneously lust for someone and love them unconditionally, the lust colors the fact that you give a damn about them in a first place. Even after the lust disappears, you still have the shared memories, experience and identity that bind the relationship and form the basis of the love. These are all that condition the love. > But now that you've provided extra constraints and context (where sexual attraction is a pre-requisite, and that you are speaking from your individual experience) I think the confusion is cleared up. These "extra constraints and context" you point to are explicit and implicit if you read the post I was replying to, I did not provide any new modifiers to this discussion. Nor am I speaking from individual experience. > Exactly, as is saying unconditional love is not possible in the presence of lust - it would require a means of knowing the emotional feelings (something notoriously difficult to measure) of all people who have been in love throughout history. Why do you need to know their emotional feelings? Is it not enough to know that lust causes attraction? How are you defining unconditional love anyway? My definition: love which is not based on conditions. How can the presence of lust NOT condition any resulting love? You can't reject basic cause and effect.

mistermann 7y ago

> We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor Oh, I thought we were talking about unconditional love in general. > if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? Afaik sexual attraction isn't a pre-requisite for love in general, let alone unconditional love. All this considered, I'm still unclear on why unconditional love and lust cannot co-exist. I can see how uni-directional/unfulfilled/non-reciprocal lust could in some cases diminish the love felt by one party (this would be a case where it isn't isn't actually unconditional love), but the part I don't understand is that unfulfilled lust must do this, even if the lust is strong.

tokenpreneur 7y ago
I'm not making the case that sexual attraction is a necessary pre-requisite for love. I'm making the case that in a love where sexual attraction is the pre-requisite, that love is not unconditioned. I meet a woman. She's beautiful. I'm attracted to her. She's attracted to me. We do the deed. Multiple times. Girlfriend. Boyfriend. Get married. We keep doing the deed. Multiple times. Eventually, we stop doing the deed, grow old. Now we say we love each other unconditionally. But how can we say that, do we now live in a vacuum that we're going to ignore the entire history of our past and that our sexual attraction (or simply, our enjoyment of each other) caused the dominoes to fall the way they did? I can't say to this woman when I'm old: "I would have loved you even if you weren't hot when we were younger" because this is an untestable claim and ontologically absurd since the "you" (from my perception of her) she was when she was younger is inseparable from how "hot" I found her.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > I'm making the case that in a love where sexual attraction is the pre-requisite, that love is not unconditioned. Ah ok that's the misunderstanding then, because earlier you said "If there's lust involved, it's by definition not unconditional", which is obviously something different so I got confused. > Eventually, we stop doing the deed, grow old. Now we say we love each other unconditionally. But how can we say that, do we now live in a vacuum that we're going to ignore the entire history of our past and that our sexual attraction (or simply, our enjoyment of each other) caused the dominoes to fall the way they did? "But how can we say that"....well, that's been my question all along, I was hoping you could explain how it isn't possible to love unconditionally in this situation, or one where lust is involved. But now that you've provided extra constraints and context (where sexual attraction is a pre-requisite, and that you are speaking from your individual experience) I think the confusion is cleared up. > I can't say to this woman when I'm old: "I would have loved you even if you weren't hot when we were younger" because this is an untestable claim Exactly, as is saying unconditional love is not possible in the presence of lust - it would require a means of knowing the emotional feelings (something notoriously difficult to measure) of all people who have been in love throughout history.
  - tokenpreneur 7y ago
    > Ah ok that's the misunderstanding then, because earlier you said "If there's lust involved, it's by definition not unconditional", which is obviously something different so I got confused. I didn't really say anything different, I was replying to an OP who said that he is participating in a love which is both unconditional and lustful, and I said that it can't be both. You can't simultaneously lust for someone and love them unconditionally, the lust colors the fact that you give a damn about them in a first place. Even after the lust disappears, you still have the shared memories, experience and identity that bind the relationship and form the basis of the love. These are all that condition the love. > But now that you've provided extra constraints and context (where sexual attraction is a pre-requisite, and that you are speaking from your individual experience) I think the confusion is cleared up. These "extra constraints and context" you point to are explicit and implicit if you read the post I was replying to, I did not provide any new modifiers to this discussion. Nor am I speaking from individual experience. > Exactly, as is saying unconditional love is not possible in the presence of lust - it would require a means of knowing the emotional feelings (something notoriously difficult to measure) of all people who have been in love throughout history. Why do you need to know their emotional feelings? Is it not enough to know that lust causes attraction? How are you defining unconditional love anyway? My definition: love which is not based on conditions. How can the presence of lust NOT condition any resulting love? You can't reject basic cause and effect.