Talk:Lust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Science
I think this page badly needs some actual information. It is more or less just a list of how different people feel about the concept of lust and gives no real information reguarding what lust actually is. I actually came to this page seeking a scientific explination of some sort, like maybe some info about what chemicals cause the feelings of lust. If anyone knows anything scientific about what lust actualy is or how it works, I would greatly appreciate it being added. - Mloren 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. On the whole this is misconceived and unhelpful. The word 'lust' has a long history and variety of usage, and the subjective impressions in these passages seem a little odd to me and out of context:
"Lust" conveys a more primal, visceral, tone than other words for sexual desire. "Lust" evokes savage, sweating, gut-wrenching coupling that is not easily associated with the more intellectual, poetic variety of "love-making" described in many texts and dictionaries.
Some people see lust as the purest form of love
many people acknowledge that feelings of lust do not always imply feelings of love,etc.,etc..
And some of the links are, to put it bluntly, ridiculously irrelevant
However,'lust' is not a particularly scientific word, this would better be covered by a links to 'libido' for reference to psychology, and 'sexual attraction' for its physiological information. --220.240.38.109 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, to borrow a phrase from the Love article:
- "Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that a consistent number of chemicals are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include; Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. More specifically, higher levels of Testosterone and Oestrogen are present during the lustful phase of a relationship. Dopamine, Norepinephrine, and Seretonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin, and Vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments."
- So "lust" IS becoming (if it isn't already) a definable biological term. Perhaps some of this information should be on here? Esn 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirection From Sexual Drive
Should sexual drive be redirected to the lust article? I think sexual drive is more related to libido, which is the physiological / psychological need for sex. Lust implies a bad connotation whereas sexual drive is simply a technical term.
- I went ahead and fixed that. --201.9.49.9 10:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Love definition
The article sattes "Love in its pure form is said to be concerned with the well-being of the other,". I do not think this statement gives a good definition of love. It is only one type of love. I am changing the article to give love a broader description which will still have the contrasting effect against lust. Hobo 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lot of weasel words in this article
"Some people say," "It is said that," etc. etc..--Foot Dragoon 05:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's called good writing.
No, that is called inaccurate sourcing.
It is hard to define love, very often it is a strong feeling of extreem hapiness with mix of sexual attraction but more on the level where soul, body and mind become a whole with another person and both parties are so clicked in together, they are in each other's zone (place) that no one can see or understand, only each other. From the side only people can say they're into each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.40.3 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 March 2007
[edit] Vandalism
is it just me, or has this been vandalised?
[edit] Lust and Christianity
I would like to make the distinction in how Christianity defines lust as a sin. Lust is not a sin if applied to one's spouse. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 makes it very clear that sex is a critical part of a married relationship, and that neither spouse should deny the other.
4 The wife doesn't have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5 Don't deprive one another, unless it is by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may be together again, that Satan doesn't tempt you because of your lack of self-control.[1]
Lust, however, is a sin if applied to someone other than one's spouse, or if it becomes more important than your devotion to God. Ziiv 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that christiantity has a variety of sects, and many interpret things differently. Some dispute the translation of your version of the bible, others think it is no longer applicable. Fundamentalist christians, and catholics would probably not agree with you, saying that sexual pleasure for non-procreative reasons was sinful. More moderate christians might agree with you, saying that sex for pleasure with ones spouse is acceptable. Atom 10:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the alternate translation of the verse you are talking about? Back up your statements. Or, for that matter, show us a Bible verse that condemns sex or pleasure in general.
For an alternate look that is not dependent on "different interpretations," look at the book Song of Solomon - described by Wikipedia itself, "The book consists of a cycle of poems about erotic love..." Serialized 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Serious POV Problems
This article seems to be less about lust and more about how various religions or groups of people think that it's a bad thing. Essentially no space is given to the massive legion of people who think lust is good, or even tolerable. Unless someone has a serious objection, I'm gonna tag this article for POV. unless 01:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ithink that this page is not talking about lust. Moresoever it is talking about how loving is a good thing and what religions say that.Unless you want to say an objection to this comment you should probably agree with me because this page is not any good. If you want to know about lust the best way to do it is look it upp in the bible.24.237.123.159 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) unknown24.237.123.159 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 7:15 15 March
What "various" religions? I only see Christianity represented. Unless other religions are represented I definitely would have to agree that there's a POV problem with this article.--74.244.37.227 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Off topic
It seems to me that this is more about what Christians think about lust than the idea of lust. It needs to be cleaned up with major grouping distinctions between the two different sub-topics. Denis Diderot II 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article has a serious lack of focus because it doesn't really have a topic. All of the etymology stuff belongs in Wiktionary, and the rest is synonymous with Erotic love. What do you think of doing a merge and killing the Lust article altogether? ~ Booya Bazooka 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
From Eendrijder I am really dissapointed. I wanted to gain some insite into the various emotions and this one lust has added nohing to my knowledge. I agree with Booyabazooka but not to kill it, but do a rewrite without references to the various religions. Lust has nothing to do with religion. It is an emotion not a teaching. Eendrijder
- I agree with Denis Diderot II. And there seems to be too much religion involved. LustDoctorTalk to the Doc 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Agreed.
I thoroughly agree with everyone's complaints over this article. I came on Wikipedia to research Lust and find information on it’s scientific definition as well as it's use in important and/or classic literature. Unfortunately, this article makes no reference to how lust is used in any kind of literature whatsoever, which I'm sure it is. Thankfully, Esn's comment helped me greatly in my search for a biological definition to Lust. But I am still stumped on how to creatively describe lust. I know that Shakespeare uses Lust in his plays, but where else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.115.80 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Boldness
Decided to Be Bold and remove all the blatantly POV, as well as the unsourced, material from this article. Also weeded through the links and killed the obviously biased ones. Didn't have time to listen to that NPR story, so I just left the link for someone else to evaluate. Obviously, this leaves the page somewhat lacking. Still, I believe that a little bit of useful information is much better than a lot of garbage. unless 09:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greek Translation
The Greek translation to the word "lust" is "lagneea" ("λαγνεία"), or more correctly "layneea", with "y" pronounced as in "yearn" and "ee" as in "bee". The word "epithymia" ("επιθυμία") means simply "desire". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.74.65.67 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sikikapoon
Googled it and the only place it exists on the internet is on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.39.186 (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 11.05.08
Oops, fixed by me. Forgot to sign in first. - NemFX (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
