So, as I glance at the paper this am, I can see plenty of conference reports. Love vs Lust as a topic seems to be getting plenty of attention. There is a real difference, but frankly, like most things, there is a scale which runs from one end of the spectrum to the other. Without some lust, human beings would have been an endangered species long ago. I'm not sure black and white is the perfect way to describe the two. You are welcome to disagree.
I've been thinking a lot lately about society's push against those of us who are gay. For centuries, society has pushed us into dark corners. To some extent, some things never change. Today is no different. When a young man is growing up, there is no easy appropriate outlet for these feelings, especially in a heavily religous environment. He can't just ask someone out in class without risking life and limb.
College can be better, but not for those of us who were BYU students. So, I'm afraid that I'd say there is a natural consequence. The internet is the tool. Pornography is very easy to come by, and of course there is Craigslist providing "hookups." About a year ago I had a conversation with a really nice fellow (Gay, RM, now living with his partner) who told me how his life changed when he and his partner got together. He pointed out how the desire for porn, and hookups just faded away. Seems rather logical, that love has replaced lust in those circumstances.
If society denies the ability to freely love, and to freely seek love to a group--the group will probably turn to the false alternative, which is unfortunately lust. I'm not trying to say that each of us can't do our best to choose the better--but I am a pretty pragmatic person, and I can see the writing on the wall.
Great thoughts. I wonder if there's an analogy here: love is to lust as hunger is to starvation. Hunger is a natural desire that leads us to nourishment, but it it is ignored it leads to starvation. Love is also a natural desire that leads us to companionship, but if that love is blocked it can lead to lust. Neither starvation nor lust are goals we seek, rather they are conditions which result from unmet needs. What do you think?
ReplyDelete@ Ned: GREAT analogy! The best I have heard ina long time. may I have your permission to post this on my web site? Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou know, it's interesting. I feel the same way about pornography as your Rm friend did. As soon as I got together with my partner, the desire to look at porn faded as did my addiction to masturbation. It's like the unmet needs I had prior to meeting Jonah were fulfilled once we got together. The interesting thing, too, is we have a good sex life, but even the desire for sex has diminished. Just being with him and having his love in my life is more than enough to satisfy me (but I won't lie; the sex is nice, too). :-)
ReplyDelete@ me. Of course, but I don't think it is an original thought. I've heard sex and food compared to each other many times. :D
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ned. I really think your analogy is brilliant.
ReplyDeleteAnd, thank you, complicated, for beginning this discussion. :)
Happy night!
I think the love/lust dichotomy does a lot of harm. Romantic love is intimately tied into sexual desire. That's why you fall in love with people you are sexually attracted to. The connection between pair-bonding and sexuality is why mixed-orientation marriages have such a dismal rate of failure. Romantic and sexual feelings are two sides of the same coin.
ReplyDeleteIf you buy into the idea of a "pure" form of romantic love that ennobles and sanctifies, you would expect this pure love to be equally expressed by people whose sexual orientations are incompatible. But this doesn't happen. The marriages fail. Aren't the sexually incompatible as capable of purity as everybody else? They are. The problem is with the idea of a "pure" romantic love that is separated from that polluted sexy stuff.
I guess I'm a contrarian on this. Attraction, interest, infatuation, falling in love (limerence), coupling and the development of a durable pair bond all exist in a sexual context. They are as much aspects of human sexuality as arousal and intercourse.
Sexual desire ("lust") is part of being human. People who have normal sexual outlets don't have a problem with it. People who don't (Catholic priests, repressed married men, unpartnered adults and teens, closeted gays, etc.) have a harder time. I don't find this surprising. It's not a big revelation to find out that people who have satisfying monogamous partnerships do better with their sexuality than those who don't.
I guess what I find damaging about the love/lust dichotomy is that it is dangerously sentimental and unrealistic about human nature. For example, people who should not get married to each other often do because the infatuation they feel is a seen as sign from God that their love is pure, when in fact it is just a facet of human sexuality, as much driven by hormones and brain chemistry as a wet dream.
I think it would be better to unify our thinking about sexuality and romantic love. We'd end up with fewer self-destructive expressions of sexuality if we did.
I haven't had a chance yet to listen to this talk by Elder Holland. I agree with Mohohawaii that it's not healthy to make love and lust dual opposites.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, it's my aim to show nonsexual love for everybody but my husband, and both nonsexual and sexual love for my husband. Within my marriage, I expect love and lust to work together, to complement each other (just as they worked together in bringing us together in the first place).
Thanks for the comments guys. I think addictions to porn and masturbation are common results of being sexually repressed or lonely. Poor substitute.
ReplyDelete