Is the distinction between sexual love and romantic love imaginary?

>>1510562
Romantic love includes sexual love but sexual love does not necessarily include romantic love.

>>1510562
>sexual love
Are you referring to lust? If not post your definition.

>>1510562
Sex is part of a relationship, you don't marry your friends, but that doesn't mean your attraction to the boy in 1456968534495.jpg is as sacred as romantic love or mentally healthy if that is what you are asking.

File: 1443938923977.jpg (44KB, 538x908px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 538x908px

>>1510562
only women know how to love:

love of men towards women = love of women towards children = utopian unconditional love

love of men towards children = love of women towards men = utility towards more pleasures and less pains.

>>1510574
Lust, yes

File: jP8lfDY.jpg (116KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x667px

>>1510586
Why is it unhealthy?

>>1510610
Then of course there's a distinction. Lust is just the biological instinct to mate, romantic love includes actual interest in the person beyond reproduction.

>>1510597
>tumblr unironically believes this

>>1510562
Yes there is a distinction.
Id fuck a dude but i would never date one.

>>1510642
But are they really separable?

>>1510663
Of course they can. Lust doesn't require love.

>>1510586
>boy

I'm intrigued

File: what.jpg (23KB, 802x523px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 802x523px

>>1510597

>>1510642
Why is it so hard for some people to not see the distinction then? Many people will self righteously confuse lus with love. Is there something wrong with them or are they just shallow and full of shit?

>>1511271
Well lust can lead to love, very easily in fact. Maybe superficial love or "puppy dog" love. This is what leads to many relationships failing after the "honeymoon faze".
Lust can lead to love in the same way that forced companionship (think Peeta and Katniss, or arranged marriages) can.

>>1511271
Because lust relies on desire and desire relies on illusions.

>>1511432
What illusion?

>>1510562
The only difference between lust and romantic love is the person you find attractive is someone you actually want to spend time with. Love is a friend you find attractive, which is why it's so uncommon as men and women tend to stay away from each as far as just being friends.
I think what we define as love is much more realistic than infatuation or lust. It the knowledge that you know that it will be a struggle, that you know there will be good and bad times, but that both of you are willing to fight through it for the sake of each other.
Many people go into relationships with this mindset that the other person will free them or save them from their pains or that things will be perfect because of them, but you can't go in with that idea. True love, or at least as real as you can get to it, it a want to be together over how easy it could be to fall apart.

File: 1465860217650.png (157KB, 268x285px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 268x285px

>>1510597
>discretion is a must
>post on a fucking social media app

As for the OP, lust is sexual attraction, pure and simple. Might last more but in the end it boils down to one thing: body. Love is beyond sex, it is enjoying a person over most, if not all, its quirks and qualities. There can be love without sex and pure lust without love, but it's easy to see why the lines would be blurred. After all, you can fall for a casual sex partner and love without sex is complicated (in a healthy, lasting relationship that is).

>>1511271
>Many people will self righteously confuse lus with love. Is there something wrong with them or are they just shallow and full of shit?
Yes.

>>1511649
This argument is silly. You can sit here and claim every aspect of human feeling is done through the manipulation of chemicals, but the fact of the matter is the end result is free will and the ability to make decisions. To turn relationships between people into Oxytocin is the same and turning every moment of happiness into just Serotonin or every conversation into Dopamine. Sure we can sit here and claim that in theory, but in practice we ourselves from those chemicals form a completely free deciding individually. It's a very cynical way to look at life and I could make countless arguments as to why we have free will.

>>1511669
Idk, but just seeing how it made you mad makes me happy to have written this post.

>>1511682
I'm not mad, I'm just opening a discussion. I suppose it's a bit difficult to show emotion in posting on online forums.

>>1511682

>lol u mad

He's just disagreeing with you, people sometimes do that anonymous. They don't have to be angry to do it, you know.

>>1511688
>>1511692
I didn't do anything wrong, I just showed off my little knoweledge about the action of hormone chemicals. Of course, there is a world outside of this, that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

>>1511701
I'm not claiming you did do anything wrong, I'm just making a counter-statement that the end result is more important than what causes the initial reaction. The end result being the ability to judge someone and make a decision on whether or not your willing to be with them and actually care about them.

>>1511701

>u mad
>I didn't do anything wrong

I'm not sure you understand what debates are for, anon. /his/ isn't just show and tell, you're supposed to discuss things.

>>1511713
>the end result is more important than what causes the initial reaction

But the two are one and the same, what causes it, and the experience it produces for the subject.

>>1511713
>>I'm not claiming you did do anything wrong, I'm just making a counter-statement that the end result is more important than what causes the initial reaction.
you think like an heodnist because you are one

I don't think love necessarily requires sex, but a healthy relationship requires sex
For example, the phrase "love them enough to let them go"

File: 1451102043765.jpg (331KB, 1548x1920px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1548x1920px

>>1512929
>but a healthy relationship requires sex
yeah, especially for women. Women who do not get to be fucked properly do not live well. Thankfully for a woman, there are always some men ready to please her in bed.

File: batmanthinking.gif (408KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 500x345px

If lust is for reproduction and love is something beyond reproduction, why there are people that are only sexually attracted to those that they love and no one else?

File: 1445728718784.jpg (69KB, 289x289px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 289x289px

>>1511271
Because people think with their dicks and vaginas.

That's how it's supposed to work.

>>1512984
>why there are people that are only sexually attracted to those that they love and no one else?
people can claim that they are only sexually attracted to those that they love and no one else, but it is dubious, especially when they try to hide that they wish to get better than their partner, but are too lazy to make the effort (this holds for men)

>>1510562
All distinctions are imaginary, they're literally imposed categories.

>>1511583
Desire is basically idealization. Idealization is obviously an illusion.

sexual love is whwn u have sex u go by hardcore , dominating , deepthroaght , slapping ass body u know ,

romanic is the different one u make love dud , ur doing everything slow with love feelings many kisses slow penetretion u r lookin in her/his eyes and trying to give everything u habe and give him/her pleasure ,

as for me when i fuck slut i habe no filings , i fuck her in throaght in anal , brutal in vagina and cum in1 hour . and when im fuckin my gf i do everything for her even licking her and i go in slow amd it goes for 2-2:40 hours and we get a lot of pleasure now u know tge difference , sorry for broken english ;)

>>1510562
Romantic love is intellectual and not physical, it is about the chase and not the execution. If you've ever seen The Graduate or read The Great Gatsby you've seen this play out. When you no longer have to chase romantic love it ceases to exist and must be replaced with something else (sex, companionship, a mature relationship, etc) or else abandoned. Don't confuse romance with "true love" which is just something that initially meant "love based in feeling" but has gradually devolved into mushy hippy gobbledygook.

>>1511669
The way I see the human mind is that it is composed of an emotional and rational brain that influence each other. Of the two, the emotional/chemical/reptilian mind is easily the most dominant but this doesn't seem so to us because we think with the enslaved rational mind. Instinct, learned behavior (i.e strengthened synapses), and emotions dominate the human brain but are interpreted as rational thoughts and choices because that's the part we see. Saying otherwise is like saying binary codes aren't that important to your computer because you're running Windows 10.

>>1510569
>Romantic love includes sexual love
according to whom?
>>1510642
why should I be restricted to passionately love only one person, the person who I also happen to fuck with?

I only see one kind of love. Making a distinction for romantic love seems to me to be a cover for the fact that sexual release is the main reason behind having a single "romantically" loved one.

Apart from sex, what can I do with my romantic love that I could not do with one or many really close friends?

>>1510586
>you don't marry your friends
If you cannot be friends with the person you marry, you are in for a lifetime of misery. Please trust me on this.

Sexual attraction is not love. A marriage needs sexual attraction, but it needs everything that goes into a quality friendship or familial relationship as well. Few people truly understand this, which is why there are so many failed marriages.

File: 1464230983284.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>1510562
>sexual love
>love
>sexual

>>1513130
is this pasta

>>1515407

>he thinks love is some free floating mystical shit not directly attached to biological imperatives of reproduction

File: 1466562661977.png (29KB, 633x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 633x357px

>>1517268
>not being a mystic