4 ms·

What happens if you never fall in lust with a partner but then fall in love just because of compatibility reasons? Is it really still as satisfying?

by xwdv 5y ago

pm90 5y ago
It depends on the people in question and how open minded they are. If either one wants good sexual compatibility but the partner isn’t able to provide it, that’s a recipe for disaster. If you both don’t have much of a sex drive then it’s probably fine.
every 5y ago
I don't know. But as you age, the lust factor tends to diminish. The relationship tends to depend on more than the mere carnal. Like being friends and enjoying each others company for instance. Partners in life, as it were...
kadoban 5y ago
As long as there is some sort of intimacy (including non-sexual and non-physical), I'd say it can be. Lust is just really convenient socially and biologically for getting an intimate relationship started.
vecinu 5y ago
Personal anecdote here but over the long term (decades) you'll regret not being passionate with each other if passion is important for you. I overlooked that aspect for the longest time based on how compatible we were on all other fronts. Unfortunately that turned out to be an expensive and hurtful drawn out lingering issue that exploded down the line. As Jordan Peterson says, the best, best case scenario is being with a partner you're compatible with and being physically attracted to. Never let go of that person.
- rosstex 5y ago
  [flagged]
i5heu 5y ago
You don’t have to have intercourse with everything you love. Love is a big term for a wide variety of feelings. It’s an never ending endeavour to explore it.
bobthechef 5y ago
Sexual attraction is different than lust. The first is good as such because it leads to procreation; the second is a vice, an excess of sexual appetite that darkens the mind and, like all vice, corrupts you from the inside. So ultimately, it is best not to "fall in lust". Lust will lead to misery in a relationship precisely because it is the condition where sexual pleasure is sought for its own sake; the other is reduced to an object of sexual exploitation. Because lust is sexual appetite that is no longer proportioned to reason, someone "in lust" will grow tired of his or her partner and will look for the next, often increasingly more risque thrill. Quite a miserable way to live. Romance as such is also different from lust. It is sexual in nature, but with a greater emphasis on the affective than on just sexual attraction on its own. Romance is what people often mean when they say "fall in love". Typically, romance only lasts a couple years, hopefully having gotten the couple far enough to procreate. Of course, it is possible to cultivate romance, but the main point here is that relationships are supposed to mature, and clinging to the pleasure of passing emotions experienced early in the relationship and using that as a standard against which the relationship is constantly measured is a sign of immaturity. Love is something we often seem incapable of understanding. Love is not an emotion as such, even if lovers experience emotions. Ultimately love is a desiring and a willing of the good. Love can be broadly divided into two basic varieties, namely, the erotic and the agathonic. The erotic (which should not be understoodd as sexual only) is a desire of the good for one's sake. Whenever we desire something for our own good, we are speaking of erotic love. Agathonic love is desiring the good of the other for their sake. A relationship requires both.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  I don't get it. You guys seem to have sex in your mind all the time. What about brotherly love? What about motherly love? What about fatherly love? What about love of one's country? What about love of humanity? What about Love Supreme expressed by John Coltrane https://youtu.be/ll3CMgiUPuU https://youtu.be/ll3CMgiUPuU
JamesBarney 5y ago
I think this really depends on the person. There are lot of people who have deep and satisfying relationships with limited intimacy. For other people it's very difficult. Check out the subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/. You'll see a lot of people on both sides of the equation. People who aren't really attracted to their mate but happy in the relationship, and mostly people who are deeply unhappy because their mate doesn't have romantic/sexual feelings for them.
klyrs 5y ago
Having had a fair share of both, I'd say yes, if not moreso. My partner and I never had the hot passionate need to be together. We became friends, we got closer, things made sense, we talked about the nature of relationships, we got closer... and we keep falling deeper in love. Sometimes I wish we had more intense sexual passion, but I've had that with lovers in the past, relationships where the loss of initial passion was notable, where depth in the relationship gradually overtook that loss. So, I guess I processed that loss, to the point where I don't see it as necessary. And, gained the perspective, that depth truly is the goal; passion only blinds us to what's not working and risks souring into passionate discontent.

What happens if you never fall in lust with a partner but then fall in love just because of compatibility reasons? Is it really still as satisfying?

by xwdv 5y ago

What happens if you never fall in lust with a partner but then fall in love just because of compatibility reasons? Is it really still as satisfying?

pm90 5y ago

It depends on the people in question and how open minded they are. If either one wants good sexual compatibility but the partner isn’t able to provide it, that’s a recipe for disaster. If you both don’t have much of a sex drive then it’s probably fine.

every 5y ago

I don't know. But as you age, the lust factor tends to diminish. The relationship tends to depend on more than the mere carnal. Like being friends and enjoying each others company for instance. Partners in life, as it were...

kadoban 5y ago

As long as there is some sort of intimacy (including non-sexual and non-physical), I'd say it can be. Lust is just really convenient socially and biologically for getting an intimate relationship started.

vecinu 5y ago

Personal anecdote here but over the long term (decades) you'll regret not being passionate with each other if passion is important for you. I overlooked that aspect for the longest time based on how compatible we were on all other fronts. Unfortunately that turned out to be an expensive and hurtful drawn out lingering issue that exploded down the line. As Jordan Peterson says, the best, best case scenario is being with a partner you're compatible with and being physically attracted to. Never let go of that person.

rosstex 5y ago
[flagged]

i5heu 5y ago

You don’t have to have intercourse with everything you love. Love is a big term for a wide variety of feelings. It’s an never ending endeavour to explore it.

bobthechef 5y ago

Sexual attraction is different than lust. The first is good as such because it leads to procreation; the second is a vice, an excess of sexual appetite that darkens the mind and, like all vice, corrupts you from the inside. So ultimately, it is best not to "fall in lust". Lust will lead to misery in a relationship precisely because it is the condition where sexual pleasure is sought for its own sake; the other is reduced to an object of sexual exploitation. Because lust is sexual appetite that is no longer proportioned to reason, someone "in lust" will grow tired of his or her partner and will look for the next, often increasingly more risque thrill. Quite a miserable way to live. Romance as such is also different from lust. It is sexual in nature, but with a greater emphasis on the affective than on just sexual attraction on its own. Romance is what people often mean when they say "fall in love". Typically, romance only lasts a couple years, hopefully having gotten the couple far enough to procreate. Of course, it is possible to cultivate romance, but the main point here is that relationships are supposed to mature, and clinging to the pleasure of passing emotions experienced early in the relationship and using that as a standard against which the relationship is constantly measured is a sign of immaturity. Love is something we often seem incapable of understanding. Love is not an emotion as such, even if lovers experience emotions. Ultimately love is a desiring and a willing of the good. Love can be broadly divided into two basic varieties, namely, the erotic and the agathonic. The erotic (which should not be understoodd as sexual only) is a desire of the good for one's sake. Whenever we desire something for our own good, we are speaking of erotic love. Agathonic love is desiring the good of the other for their sake. A relationship requires both.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
I don't get it. You guys seem to have sex in your mind all the time. What about brotherly love? What about motherly love? What about fatherly love? What about love of one's country? What about love of humanity? What about Love Supreme expressed by John Coltrane https://youtu.be/ll3CMgiUPuU https://youtu.be/ll3CMgiUPuU

JamesBarney 5y ago

I think this really depends on the person. There are lot of people who have deep and satisfying relationships with limited intimacy. For other people it's very difficult. Check out the subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/. You'll see a lot of people on both sides of the equation. People who aren't really attracted to their mate but happy in the relationship, and mostly people who are deeply unhappy because their mate doesn't have romantic/sexual feelings for them.

klyrs 5y ago

Having had a fair share of both, I'd say yes, if not moreso. My partner and I never had the hot passionate need to be together. We became friends, we got closer, things made sense, we talked about the nature of relationships, we got closer... and we keep falling deeper in love. Sometimes I wish we had more intense sexual passion, but I've had that with lovers in the past, relationships where the loss of initial passion was notable, where depth in the relationship gradually overtook that loss. So, I guess I processed that loss, to the point where I don't see it as necessary. And, gained the perspective, that depth truly is the goal; passion only blinds us to what's not working and risks souring into passionate discontent.