Bee Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 I never look at a bloke and think 'wonder what he looks like naked?' I meet someone and they become more attractive, if i like their personality. But the lust thing doesnt seem to be there. Anyone have a clue ?????? :) Link to post Share on other sites
Skiddaloxx Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Well, basically it's called being asexual!!! If you feel that way, you are right here! East Sussex, huh? *assimilating the wicked british accent* Tea, my dear? Link to post Share on other sites
Jayann Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Lust, I suppose, is rooted in the desire to pass on one's genes with the person (s)he is lusting after. It seems to have a lot to do with pheromones and chemical interactions that affect how attractive you find someone to be. [dorky psychology student] Studies on women at different points in their ovulation cycles showed that at different times of the month they find different features to be more physically attractive. For example, ovulating (heterosexual) women find men with strong masculine facial features and healthy looks to be generally more attractive, because of a sort of innate association between outward beauty and having good, healthy genes. When women are more fertile, they (quite unconsciously) seek out mates with good genes so they can have healthy offspring. When these women were not ovulating they found that digitally feminized photos of men (the men's facial features were made softer and more feminine looking) to be more attractive. By this logic, if a woman is not fertile, she is looking for someone who is less physical impressive and more emotional and nurturing, because they need a mate to help them raise the offspring. At any rate, I'm not sure what these studies would say about asexuals. Presumably that we (and possibly homosexuals?) are Nature's way of keeping the population down. [/dorky psychology student] Link to post Share on other sites
Zorui Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 I've always gone with the nature's population control theory. Thank you, nature! Link to post Share on other sites
Bestatued Head Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 For example' date=' ovulating (heterosexual) women find men with strong masculine facial features and healthy looks to be generally more attractive, because of a sort of innate association between outward beauty and having good, healthy genes. When women are more fertile, they (quite unconsciously) seek out mates with good genes so they can have healthy offspring. When these women were not ovulating they found that digitally feminized photos of men (the men's facial features were made softer and more feminine looking) to be more attractive. By this logic, if a woman is not fertile, she is looking for someone who is less physical impressive and more emotional and nurturing, because they need a mate to help them raise the offspring. /quote'] I always find feminine feature on males attractive. Also I tend to favor guys that look like they hobos, and the ones I've had convorsations with are very good people (not jerks like the macho men 6-pack abs type). Link to post Share on other sites
Jayann Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Whoops, I forgot to enter my lil obligatory disclaimer of explanation: Don't get the wrong idea - I don't mean to say that these observations apply to all heterosexual women, let alone non-het women. I should be interested to see the results of a similar study on lesbian, bisexual, or asexual women. Just thought it was an interesting little supplement to the concept of lust. Link to post Share on other sites
Bestatued Head Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Julie, I wasn't trying to condradict your statement when I said that, I was just putting my 2 cents in. :D Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 to me, lust always dealt w/ the whole "i'm gonna get you into bed" thing. don't know if there's more to this (there probably is), but that's what i've always thought it to be. :? Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 You mean the personal experience of lust? I asked some sexuals on a message board about this once. Here's the link; it's only four replies, and they're short: http://www.scarleteen.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/001146.html I've also heard that increased heartrate, catching one's breath, and some other things I can't remember also can characterize lust. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 I couldn't explain the meaning of "lust" better than the dictionnary. Link to post Share on other sites
true Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 I don't get it either, but when I fall in love with someone from the inside out, sex is not bad. I just don't fall in love with someone from the outside in, like a lot of people. Actually, no, they don't really fall in love with the person, it's more just sex for sex's sake and because the other person is "hot". . . what is "hot"? I seriously don't know. . . we need to get some flaming sexuals on here to explain. . .probably just has to do with hormones or something silly like that. . . Link to post Share on other sites
marle35 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 >I never look at a bloke and think 'wonder what he looks like naked?' >I meet someone and they become more attractive, if i like their >personality. But the lust thing doesnt seem to be there. >Anyone have a clue ?????? Lust is a desire to have sex with someone. My god, what else is there to explain? I desire to have sex with a woman because she is within the type I could possibly be sexually attracted to (between ages 16 and 54, physically attractive or mentally attractrive). There is a 30 or 40ish professor I had for one class, she is of course intelligent and confident (as a professor, yum). She is physically good-looking enough, so I imagine her spreading her legs enough for me to imagine, well, getting orally intimate with her (she wears skirts), and I get distracted and turned on by my fantasies. If someone is extremely physically good-looking, I lust after them. If someone is kinda-sorta good looking, and *intelligent* and has a nice personality, I lust after them (even more). I just feel physically hot when thinking about them, and my mind immediately drifts towards thinking about them in sexual positions (bending over) or in sexually physical positions w/ me (the two of us naked or w/ almost no clothes, together) and start thing about sex. Lust is the desire to have sex w/ someone, whether you want the desire or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 But can't you lust after other things too? Like those uber godly-ass items on Diablo 2, or a huge piece of cheesecake . . . Well okay, the comment about the teacher spreading her legs was enough to put me off the cheesecake. Thank you for saving me five dollars and reducing my calorie intake :) Link to post Share on other sites
JKReagan99 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 But can't you lust after other things too? Like those uber godly-ass items on Diablo 2, or a huge piece of cheesecake . . . I think you can, but you want to use those items you lust over, so lust over a person (in our *unfortunately* sexual world) would mean you want to use the person aka have sex with them.Well okay, the comment about the teacher spreading her legs was enough to put me off the cheesecake. Thank you for saving me five dollars and reducing my calorie intake :)*lol* Link to post Share on other sites
guardianoftheblind Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 It's not often I lust over a person based only on physical appearance, they have to be really something for that to happen. I usually need to either feel an emotional attraction towards the person, or envision various things that have to do with personality and behavior. I consider that a bit deeper than simple lust, I think of lust as simply drooling over someone because of how they look with no thought of who they are as a person or their personality and such. I like the word fantasize better than lust. Link to post Share on other sites
marle35 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 "I think of lust as simply drooling over someone because of how they look with no thought of who they are as a person or their personality and such. I like the word fantasize better than lust." A very important factor in liking my teacher was her intelligence (apart from that I think she looked average), and yet I would still say that I definitely LUSTED after her. I feel like I need to hide in shame in this place :oops: (asexual board and all... heh..at least I think I'm being on topic in this thread), especially after what I posted last night. :oops: Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I feel like I need to hide in shame in this place Please don't. I, for one, found your post informative. (I'm curious, and most people are either too embarrassed to describe lust/attraction, or can't find the words for it, because apparently it's like describing hunger or something.) Link to post Share on other sites
Cate Perfect Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Yeah, again I use the word 'lust' in a completely asexual way. I lust after chocolate and those new BMW mini Coopers. I lust after things I want or admire. I don't want sex so I don't apply that meaning to that word, though I recognise that the majority of people so connect lust with wanting to have naked time with someone. Cate Link to post Share on other sites
cronos Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I feel like I need to hide in shame in this place Please don't. I, for one, found your post informative. (I'm curious, and most people are either too embarrassed to describe lust/attraction, or can't find the words for it, because apparently it's like describing hunger or something.) As did I. I think it's because people refer to the physical effects of lust and not the mental aspect of it. Which is odd, since it appears that lust is primarily a mental state. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 I posted here, but it must have been killed. Anyway, when I see someone who looks like they might be a good friend - be it the way they act, or something as simple as having a shirt on with a band that I like, I feel a strong urge to get their attention and chat with them. Could lust be like that, but with a sexual motivation instead? Link to post Share on other sites
JKReagan99 Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 I think that it is a little like lust, without the sexual undertones, as there still is an urge for something involved, except that you actually want to get to be friends and get to know the other person, which I think is deeper than lust, though I'm not sure what a term for that would be exactly... Link to post Share on other sites
dabishop Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 My vote goes to 'agape', which is really just the urge to socialize. The word has its roots in early Christian practice, which was to get together at someone's house and do their forbidden early Christian rite thingies, but in our world it can have a broader meaning - the wish to get to know a person, to have some kind of meaningful contact with another person's soul or essence or whatever you want to call it. This still exists in today's world, doesn't it ? Not everything has some ulterior motive having to do with gratification and power and other grody stuff? My apologies...it's been that kind of week. Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 My vote goes to 'agape', which is really just the urge to socialize. No, "agape" is, in my experience, used to describe spiritual love, mostly of the "loving humanity because you're godly" sort. This is not the same as friendly love -- that would be "philos." The word has its roots in early Christian practice, which was to get together at someone's house and do their forbidden early Christian rite thingies Do you have a source for this? Because I was under the impression that "agape" -- like the other Greek words for love -- predated Christianity. Link to post Share on other sites
dabishop Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 I'll go with you on the spiritual definition. But as far as predating Christian practice -- possibly. The term was pretty thoroughly hijacked in the New Testament, so that most modern scholarship doesn't bother to look for deeper linguistic roots, but what I've found points specifically to the 'love-feast' of the early Christians... http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/C/CHARITY/ This source claims the word doesn't have any roots further back than the Septuagint, which I guess is debatable. I just took my cue from http://galileo.spaceports.com/~cjhoad/conf.../cc_modern.html which sets "agape" separate from "eros", a difference which apparently applies even to Confucianism, which made me think I could apply it even more broadly. My apologies if it was a little too broad. Link to post Share on other sites
true Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 I know how you feel. I don't "check out" people or think of the human body as some kind of sex machine or something sick like that. . . but when I'm close to someone emotionally, spiritually, I just. . . want to be as close to them as possible. It's like, this whole, crazy magnetic attraction. . . but I don't see how you could see some stranger in the streets and want to go at it right there. . . it's just so. .. backwards. "Lust" disgusts me. . . but LOVE-spiritual, emotional, even a little physical-floods the heart with purity, warmth, peace, energy. . . it's just too good!!!!!!ahhh, I'm soooo in love. sigh. Love and Luck!!! True Link to post Share on other sites
AVENguy Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 But can't you lust after other things too? Like those uber godly-ass items on Diablo 2, or a huge piece of cheesecake . . . I heart gorax mog. Lust is a desire to have sex with someone. My god, what else is there to explain? Well sex, for one. You describe attraction as being associated with a specific set of physical acts, but for another person sexual attraction may be associated with some entirely different set of acts. "Intelligent prof" to "cunnilingus" is quite a jump. Why not a specific desire to lick her ear? Or go skydiving together? Or spar? (Let me second ink in telling you that there's no need to be ashamed. One of the perks of being asexual is that we don't get hot and bothered when people talk about sexuality.) An interesting paralell between the two quotes above: for Gorax, lust is about OWNERSHIP. When applied to inanimate objects to "lust" after something denotes a desire to have it. Is there a paralell with lust (is lust a desire to "have" another person, and sex just the best way to do that?) Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 I would disagree -- strongly -- with the "lusting after objects" business. "Lust," when used it its literal sense by most people, has a very specific sexual connotation -- it means sexual desire for someone/thing. When the people here say they're lusting after a thing, they're using a different, figurative definition, and expanding it to include all desire. It's the same difference between saying "I hunger for cake" and "I hunger for power." Yes, it's the same word, but it doesn't mean the same thing. The first usage describes a physiological and emotional state; the second is saying that my desire for power is like that physiological and emotional state. Lust is a desire to have sex with someone. My god, what else is there to explain? Well sex, for one. You describe attraction as being associated with a specific set of physical acts, but for another person sexual attraction may be associated with some entirely different set of acts. "Intelligent prof" to "cunnilingus" is quite a jump. Why not a specific desire to lick her ear? Or go skydiving together? Or spar? Where's the problem here? "Lust is a desire to have sex with someone" and "people's conceptions of sex differ" are not mutually exclusive ideas. It's like saying "hunger is a desire for food." People's ideas of what food is -- and what good food is -- are different, but that doesn't make the concept of hunger difficult to understand on a purely intellectual level. Link to post Share on other sites
JKReagan99 Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 I also believe that when lust is used concerning people it does refer to a sexual desire, however I think it can be legitamately used with non-human things. Lust is a desire for something. I think the difference between love and lust has to do with *how* you want something. Love has to do with more of an unselfish desire. When you love someone, who think of them first, not yourself. When you lust over something, you want it for yourself, not for it's sake. (that probably made no sense :? .) Love then also changes mean slightly when using it for non-human things. For non-human things, I think love refers to something you already have, and lust is a want for something you don't have. With people, this seems to be true as well to an extent. When you lust over someone, you don't really know them, but want them, but when you love someone, you have to know them well. Link to post Share on other sites
PinkOlorin Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Love has to do with more of an unselfish desire. When you love someone, who think of them first, not yourself. When you lust over something, you want it for yourself, not for it's sake. Alright, my theory is that lust isn't simply desire but expectation. I think the closest I've ever come to that feeling is when I'm waiting for a new book to come out, especially if I've just read the one that comes right before it. I know the characters, I know where the plot might be going, I know a little of the next storyline and I'm practically beside myself wanting to know what's going to happen. Then, while I wait, I might imagine stuff. Maybe this will happen. Maybe that will happen. Literally, they are fantasies. "Lust" has a physical aspect to it, just like hunger or any other form of desire. It is *not* the same thing as desire--as far as I can tell in the sexual relm, lust comes long before desire, and love sticks around long after lust is gone (I mean, my parents don't lust after eachother.--or, I hope they don't, ew--). I think that love is a steadier, deeper, more *emotional* item whereas lust is more physical. You brain creates a pleasurable sensation and it thinks that if you could just *be* with the person, (and "be with" can mean different things to different people at different times), you will experience more pleasure. This is the expectation, though, not necessarily what will deliver when you're with them. Link to post Share on other sites
Live R Perfect Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Yep - I agree with Pink. Lust = Expectation (or anticipation?) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts