> 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 somethin

> 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.