What y'll thing about it?

it depends on the cake.....if you are haging out with a bombshell who is only after lust, then it is lust that should prevail...for example that old fart who got married to anna nicole smith...i am sure that he had lust in his heart and in other withering parts of his anatomy (i apologize for putting this image in the minds of some poeple here)

but if you find someone who you love and who loves you back, go with option B, regardless of which stage in life you are...there will be some lust there too...so it depends on the cake...so i would go with B, even though i am closer in age to a horny teenager..

lust is like cake...when you are hungry, you think you can never have enough...once you have finished half of it, you don't want it no more, cos diminishing returns starts to kick in..so lust is ephemeral...it comes and goes, coemes and goes, sometimes if you have too much cake for an extended period oftime, you dont wnat to see any more cake for the rest of your life...that's lust.

so for us, the best strategy is to go with something that is more permanent, and (a little corny here) touches our souls....lust is emphemeral, makes us crave for it, and ultimately makes us miserable...(having said that i would not deny it)......love is like a nice chocolate cake tat you never get tired of eating, and it's always there and you always give it and receive it and it makes you feel good deep down inside (another corny line)

I got your point. But strictly staying within the hypothesis, which stressed one never ending lust with increasing wild passion, and burning lust, WITHOUT the diminishing return factor kicking in, and IS NOT ephemeral but is eternal, what shall we choose?

I know, I would go for the second option too, being an overtly romantic by heart, I can not have two ways about love, whatever that is. People might think the lines are corny and what not, but all that shall matter is how our better half is feeling, because it is with her that we shall share our life. So I would rather be corny, and cheesy, if she likes it, than to pretend an egoist macho. After all when push comes to shove, the truth shall come out regardless. So I totally understand what you are drawing out there.

But what I wanted to find out basically is, given the hypothesis of lust being enduring and passion undying; IF ALL THINGS REMAIN CONSTANT, which basically takes away Anna Nicole factor and her nonagenarian Romeo, what would an average human being choose? A human being, by nature is selfish, and each of our relationship is special to us because it satisfies our special needs. Thus, I was just wondering that, if the hypothesis stands, negating the diminishing return theory, then, will more people if not all, shall go for undying passion?

Remember the hypothesis also has a basis which states, "if all things remain constant."
Don't you think more people will go for pure lust in that case?

IndisGuise:)

by lust, i am assumign that you are referring to " intense and unbridled sexual desire." if that desire were to continue to remain strong, even after experiencing the joy that comes from the satisfaction of that desire, then the question you've raised 's a hard one to answer...

i think that under the stated assumptions, it boils down to whether one prefers lust or love. eternal love or eternal carnal lust? i would be inclined towards love because it touches you at a deeper level than mere carnal desire. love transcends the carnal and touches the spiritual and mental (lust does hte mental thing too, but only to a limited degree)....so it's deeper, and given that, my choice weould be the same as yours.

for instance, i've seen dogs having sex in the streets. i lookded at hte dog's eyes, and they were glazed...it was like he was not there....it was like something else was possessing this animal...maybe the invisble hand of evolution was controlling this animal to engage in the act...it was fornication, not making love...this is probably an over-dramatic extension, but i think lust reduces us to that similar state of being, where we allow the primate in us to become controlled by the laws of evolution...that our function is simply to y preserve our lineage.....but we humans are beyond that.

neo nepal...ma ta euta keti ko view bata bhandai chu..sorry if i say anything wrong..if she would have want money...power ..respect..than i think she dumped you not you dump her...or may be she was not happy with you ..and she just have said that she want's power...respect...

Yes, this hypothetical lust included "intense and unbridled sexual desire," which copulated with burning passion, would remain constant or increase for perpetuity. It is everything else but love. I presume it is kind of intricate, but I was caught by the fancy of this premise.

Let us assume that we know what love is. One of the most common attribute of love is we give our complete self to others, whereupon s/he has the ability and power over us to cause pain. Now, look at this trade off. If we go for everything that lust is in our hypothesis, bar love, it would basically mean "Absit iniuria verbis," which implies, "Let injury by words be absent," meaning, we do not risk ourselves being victim of his/her words. Here, I am using "words" as a metaphor for every other pain this love can bring.

Could there be a worse feeling than to have love unrealized? But I guess that is not being fair with the B hypothesis. Whereas I assumed eternal lust at one hand (for A); I presented biased origin by assuming ephemeral love on another (For B).

Nonetheless, like you said, we the human inevitably seek for deeper connotation, in the sense that we are beyond that. And yes, I have noticed the transfixed eyes of those dogs, almost making it seem like they are possessed by some malevolence. But then again, we can only make assumption on what appears on surface.

It is fun to play Advocatus Diaboli on utterly eerie premise at times, advocating lust over love, but even devil's advocate can lean on hypothesis for so long. The gist here is, given the stated premise, what would we choose; body or soul? Is not that the dialogue all about in the deeper sense?

When it all boils-down; what is a body without a soul eh'?

Exanimate!

For now...
IndisGuise:)

Usgals,
She dumps me no way…she still wants to come back and stay with me for physical happiness. The only problem we have economical problem, which I can not build “Rome in one day”. Now, you tell me that she dumps me or I dump her….

indisguize, yup body sans soul aint good. it's all about sharing the love...
well, we've successfully hijacked neo_nepal's thread, so i guess its time to give it back to him. dump the broad neo_nepal. she's not after you, she's after money and fame....if she can exert this pressure on you before marriage and make you feel miserable, i can say that that you life will be like living inside a pressure cooker after marriage...i am just guessing; the married folks prolly know better...anyway, good luck...

what i meant was, the married folks can probably SPECULATE about the future in this SPECIFIC case involving the two of you, given you personalities...- one is a laid back, easy going guy, one is an intense go-getter, who dreams of much bigger things...

Yep, yep zalim it's about time.

I guess what you did is fine neo_nepal. After all, it is crystal clear (from your postings) that you two are mutually exclusive. Only good for initial attraction, not really to sustain it. So there!

Instead of I dumped, she dumped game, how about just stating that you guys just grew out of each other. End of the story. But if you also have a craving for physical happiness, and have "intense and unbridled sexual desire," which every potent male is supposed to have, you may consider her offer.

I would not do it. No, not for any other reason, but simply because revisiting the mental torture does not sound worth it. But hey, you ain't me. So. . .

Good luck.

IndisGuise:)