5 ms·

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-requ

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
    > Why do you need to know their emotional feelings? How do you know whether all people are unable to love unconditionally when lust is involved?

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
  > Why do you need to know their emotional feelings? How do you know whether all people are unable to love unconditionally when lust is involved?