Love or Lust?

kck kck
As kids, we're fed story tales with instantaneous love, romance, and Happily Ever Afters (whatever those are, eh?). And as adults... well, obviously growing up we learn that this isn't necessarily how things are. Sure, there are real-life love stories, but there are also plenty of real-life lust stories.

So, my question to my fellow EFers is this:
In an ideal relationship, would you rather have Love or Lust?
Answers (private voting - your screen name will NOT appear in the results):
I'd rather have pure Love that's fueled by sincere appreciation for my S.O.
26
I'd rather have pure Lust that keeps things rough and spicy.
6
A mixture of the two, but more Love than Lust.
171
A mixture of the two, but more Lust than Love.
16
I wouldn't care as long as I were *with* someone.
1
Relationships... with people? Pish posh! I have toys!
8
Other ('splain)
7
Total votes: 235 (211 voters)
Poll is closed
08/22/2010
  • Weekly Special; Buy 1 Vibe, get 1 FREE
  • Save 15% on Luxury Brands
  • Annual Clearance - Save 30%
  • Buy Cascade vibe and save 50% on lubricants!
  • Save 20% on self-lubricating Cascade vibe and sleeve kit
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
PassionQT PassionQT
Lust is that emotional high, love is what remains after the majority of the lust is gone. That's my mantra concerning all this
08/23/2010
LikeSunshineDust LikeSunshineDust
I agree with PassionQT, though I voted for a mixture with more lust than love.... I suspect that my voting is influenced by my current situation though.
08/23/2010
SydVicious SydVicious
I also agree with PassionQT, you have to have the love for those times when lust is gone. Life sometimes gets in the way. Sure I would love to live in a romantic fairy tale where things like taking care of a sick kid and paying the bills didn't get in the way, but those things happen.
08/23/2010
kck kck
All true. I, too, personally believe that love is what will outlive lust.
08/23/2010
Chilipepper Chilipepper
"'Love' is just 'lust' misspelled." - Harlan Ellison :-/

EDIT: Okay, I AM a romantic. After spending a hellish 'love-match' marriage where there wasn't any lust at all, I'm still a bit cynical that they can coexist. It must because of all the couples I see here.
08/23/2010
P'Gell P'Gell
A pretty even mix of Love and Lust together. I've had Lust relationships, without much love, meh, and been in Love without enough sex (no THANK you) so I need a mix of both. Without either, I feel neglected and get depressed.

This can be achieved, even though both Love and Lust wax and wane in long term relationships. The best is when they are both on the upswing in a good relationship.
08/23/2010
P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by PassionQT
Lust is that emotional high, love is what remains after the majority of the lust is gone. That's my mantra concerning all this
Passion, I have to respectfully disagree. My Man and I are madly in love, and at the present time have more lust for each other than ever.

This can happen. It isn't perfect all the time (witness my whining and complaining last week, when I wasn't getting enough. It was fixed over the weekend. ) But, a good mix of both can and does happen. For me, with my feelings for him. the love came before the lust. Then things have been dynamic and ever changing since the beginning of our relationship. We've been through periods where we can barely stand each other, we've been in the depths of despair, we've had weeks or months of passion so deep, I thought I would never breathe again, and we've fallen back in Love with each other a hundred times.

Long term relationships are trying, but if the person and you are right for each other, a good balance can be reached.....only to have it disrupted shortly afterward, and then needing the two of you to work to restore equilibrium.

But, at least IMO, both are possible at the same time. One can Lust and Love for the same person at the same time, and it can last. But, it is a buttload of work.
08/23/2010
Airen Wolf Airen Wolf
Quote:
Originally posted by kck
As kids, we're fed story tales with instantaneous love, romance, and Happily Ever Afters (whatever those are, eh?). And as adults... well, obviously growing up we learn that this isn't necessarily how things are. Sure, there are real-life ... More
I prefer a bit of lust and a whole lotta love.
08/23/2010
Airen Wolf Airen Wolf
Quote:
Originally posted by P'Gell
Passion, I have to respectfully disagree. My Man and I are madly in love, and at the present time have more lust for each other than ever.

This can happen. It isn't perfect all the time (witness my whining and complaining last week, when ... More
I have to agree P'Gell I have been through the rollercoaster ride with Sigel for almost 25 years. Times where I was physically aching for him and times where he could have not come home and I'd have barely noticed. I am seeing the same sort of ebb and flow with Arch with us rapidly approaching 4 years. I like it this way...that first year of hormone induced lust is WAY too chaotic for my liking.
08/23/2010
Sir Sir
I'm wondering how love-only means no sex. Part of loving a person is wanting them sexually. Doesn't mean that they're lustful.

So yes. Love only, completely. No lust, unless I want a quick thing, which I do not want. I enjoy greedy, hungry hands reaching for me, sure, but I do not find that being "lustful," I find that to be loving.
08/23/2010
NuMe NuMe
I agree with P'Gell and Airen. We have both love and lust...and friendship. Not all of them work perfectly all the time. We do both love each other always, but we don't always lust after each other (there have been cold spells in our marriage), and we don't always like each other.

I always tell people that we are a family. In a family you make it work, even when things aren't going well. I made a commitment to my husband to love him forever, he is my family!!! So even though we've had some MAJOR rough spots in our marriage, neither one of us ever even suggested calling it quits.

But yeah, the lust is important too. I still look at him sometimes and just want to jump his bones. And I still think he's HOT!
08/23/2010
Gunsmoke Gunsmoke
There are a lot of very posts to this thread. Like most everyone else I agree that lust without love is very empty - not really worth the effort. Also like most others who responded I am married to an absolutely wonderful spouse who I am more than willing to work out the occasional issues that arise.

I honestly feel like the luckiest man on earth - and that feeling has nothing to do with wealth - just the privilege of having a spouse who lusts after me - as I do her.
08/23/2010
kck kck
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir
I'm wondering how love-only means no sex. Part of loving a person is wanting them sexually. Doesn't mean that they're lustful.

So yes. Love only, completely. No lust, unless I want a quick thing, which I do not want. I enjoy ... More
I agree with Sir. Pure love doesn't necessarily mean "No Sex." Pure, in this case, does not equal virginal.
08/23/2010
NightNight NightNight
Love makes lust more fulfilling, and vice versa. They complement each other, I think.
08/23/2010
Darling Jen Darling Jen
Ideally I'd have both: unconditional love and passionate desire. If I had to choose I'd go for love, definitely. No hesitation!
08/24/2010
deltalima deltalima
This is tricky. Usually, in a long term relationship, it's assumed that love is higher up than lust. But my reasoning is that I love a lot of people, some who I am not or don't want an intimate (not just sexually) relationship with. It's the lust or passion that gives a relationship much more and makes it different than a relationship with a friend.

I think it's a 51-49 thing with lust being that extra push.
08/25/2010
PassionQT PassionQT
Quote:
Originally posted by P'Gell
Passion, I have to respectfully disagree. My Man and I are madly in love, and at the present time have more lust for each other than ever.

This can happen. It isn't perfect all the time (witness my whining and complaining last week, when ... More
I'm not saying you can't have both in a relationship, but from my experience, the longer we have been together (15+ years), there's less lust, but it's love that keeps us together. There are certainly moments of lust here and there, but it's not like when we first started dating.

If any couple still has plenty of both after several years of being together, that's awesome! Every couple is different though. Some need equal amounts of both, some prefer more love than lust, sometimes the scale is tipped the other way. But in the end, love has to be present in order to sustain the relationship. Lust can't survive on its own for too long.
08/25/2010
Envy Envy
I like a mix.
08/26/2010
DeliciousSurprise DeliciousSurprise
If you only have lust, then the moment the sex is lacking it's all over.

If you only have love, it's little more than a friendship.

There should be a lot of love and at least a lust. Preferably more than a little!
08/26/2010
SexyySarah SexyySarah
Definitely love, but I think you need a little lust in it to keep the sex drive alive! But I wouldn't be happy without love and I have it with my hubby!
08/26/2010
Sera Sera
Quote:
Originally posted by kck
As kids, we're fed story tales with instantaneous love, romance, and Happily Ever Afters (whatever those are, eh?). And as adults... well, obviously growing up we learn that this isn't necessarily how things are. Sure, there are real-life ... More
Love is the most important to me, but lust does play a part in there somewhat of the time.
08/29/2010
BJismyname BJismyname
I would find it hard to be in a serious relationship with someone I didn't lust to have sex with at least a bunch lol. But love conquers all right? Post sex cuddles make the world a happy sunshiney place lol.
08/30/2010
Not here Not here
Quote:
Originally posted by DeliciousSurprise
If you only have lust, then the moment the sex is lacking it's all over.

If you only have love, it's little more than a friendship.

There should be a lot of love and at least a lust. Preferably more than a little!
I couldn't have said it better!

I agree completely!
08/30/2010
softkkisses softkkisses
Both most definitely
09/01/2010
Persephone's Addiction Persephone's Addiction
I picked other... I wouldn't want a relationship that didn't have both. Love and lust are separate, but related, things - It would be like asking if you'd rather have a relationship with either trust or intimacy. I think a good relationship needs both. I wouldn't want a relationship that was love but no lust (my last relationship) or one that was lust but no love (my entire teenage existence).
I don't think it's true that lust necessarily dies, either. It can - just like love in a relationship can dissipate. But, I'm not going to say I want one more than the other - in the same way that I don't want my electricity OR my water shut off! I like them both, thanks!
09/06/2010
Naughty Student Naughty Student
I picked more love than lust but really it would have to be two roller coasters of lust and love. Sometimes lust overiding love then love overriding lust then have lots of love and lots of lust. I sort of crazy varying mixture of both.
09/06/2010
PurpleBerry PurpleBerry
I pick love with a buring desire.
09/07/2010
Jenniae09 Jenniae09
Sometimes I feel love can just cause too much drama and problems and sometimes it's easier to make yourself happy and just go in it for the sex (then who cares about "cheating" as much). I mean hey, why not get some fun out of it rather than always having to impress your partner, listen to them bicker about something, and who knows what else.
Alas, I am not going to lie I have fallen in love a few times and maybe the heartbreaks caused that idea of thought. I am currently in a long term relationship and we're super happy, sure we fight, but the sex is absolutely amazing too. So I guess it's working out for the best right now and has shown me that you can be in love with someone and having a great sex life. Wow, who knew?
09/07/2010
mrs.mckrakn mrs.mckrakn
lust will enentually fade from any realationship. love all around. cant get enough of what my hubbie gives me.
10/03/2010
Total posts: 103
Unique posters: 92