Defining Love and Lust
This is specifically aimed at an audience with little or no experience of love and some experience of mathematics for computer scientists. Cunts, the lot of them, but that's just an opinion.
Love is a very large set in the universal set of human relationships - you might say {E-x}. Lust is a smaller set, perhaps {E-y}, where y>x. See? And to boot, Lust does not equal a subset of Love.
Proof: Love is not the entirety on which we base human relationships (unless you're a Christian, but in this case, they can fuck off). We are indifferent to many people that we have to interact with, for example, people who work in call centres. I do not love them.
Similarly, Lust is not the entirety of human relationships. cf. sexual preferences. There may be some exclusives here, but for the time being, apply this to yourself and if you really do lust after your parents and Saddam Hussein, then get help.
Finally, love is not entirely lust. One proof would be that there are different types of love, a concept that should be easily acceptable: agape, eros, platonic.
A more precise counter: I can still love my girlfriend and not lust after her, temporarily. For example, she could do something that makes me so angry, or repulsed that I don't want to see or hear from her (temporarily, but so far not permanently), I don't even want to think about her. For example, smearing dog shit on her lips and telling me to kiss her would shrivel me up faster than a slug in salt.
Or, on a psychological level, telling me I've done something wrong and not explaining it to me (like she did the other night) infuriates me to the point that I want to slam the phone down on her. The normal desire at that point is to go down the pub and drink myself into oblivion with a bunch of mates and talk about things that are really offensive to women. I still love her, however, through all of this. For me, this is part of accepting that love is a cunt.
So I may have misled a little by being so brief when I threw that comment at Dr. Dre. I agree that love and lust have a close relationship, but the relationship is not equivalent. It really takes a good old fashioned cunting in both ears with the diamond drill of love to communicate this.
Love is a very large set in the universal set of human relationships - you might say {E-x}. Lust is a smaller set, perhaps {E-y}, where y>x. See? And to boot, Lust does not equal a subset of Love.
Proof: Love is not the entirety on which we base human relationships (unless you're a Christian, but in this case, they can fuck off). We are indifferent to many people that we have to interact with, for example, people who work in call centres. I do not love them.
Similarly, Lust is not the entirety of human relationships. cf. sexual preferences. There may be some exclusives here, but for the time being, apply this to yourself and if you really do lust after your parents and Saddam Hussein, then get help.
Finally, love is not entirely lust. One proof would be that there are different types of love, a concept that should be easily acceptable: agape, eros, platonic.
A more precise counter: I can still love my girlfriend and not lust after her, temporarily. For example, she could do something that makes me so angry, or repulsed that I don't want to see or hear from her (temporarily, but so far not permanently), I don't even want to think about her. For example, smearing dog shit on her lips and telling me to kiss her would shrivel me up faster than a slug in salt.
Or, on a psychological level, telling me I've done something wrong and not explaining it to me (like she did the other night) infuriates me to the point that I want to slam the phone down on her. The normal desire at that point is to go down the pub and drink myself into oblivion with a bunch of mates and talk about things that are really offensive to women. I still love her, however, through all of this. For me, this is part of accepting that love is a cunt.
So I may have misled a little by being so brief when I threw that comment at Dr. Dre. I agree that love and lust have a close relationship, but the relationship is not equivalent. It really takes a good old fashioned cunting in both ears with the diamond drill of love to communicate this.
posted by Anonymous | 4:58 pm
I didn't quite understand your 'proof' of lust not being a subset of love. All I meant when I said it (and I don't recall where exactly I said it, but I do remember saying it), was: When you lust after someone you do love them in a certain fashion. But when you love someone, you don't necessarily lust after them. Hence what I said.
In fact, you semi-agreed with me, when you said love is not entirely lust. Are you disputing that if you lusted after someone, you wouldn't love them a little? There are many levels to love.
Hmmm, either I'm not educated enough in mathematics (does GCSE level count?! LOL) or I've been around the block too many times. Possibly a combination of both... ;)
seeing as how i've been "in lust" with someone whom i otherwise despised... no, lust does not necessarily involve love at all.
Tess: Hate is the exact same thing as love. Despising someone is exactly the same as loving them a little. Confused? Goooooood.
nah. thats not confusing. its a concept that i've heard before. not one that i buy into... but i'll compromise and say that there is a very very very thin line between love and hate.
really i think this whole argument about love vs. lust is rather a moot point. an interesting moot point, but moot nonetheless.
love is to lust as a square is to a rectangle. love is lust (magnified times oh, infinity), but lust is not necessarily love. thats my take anyway.
I agree that it's a moot point.