I've dedicated some time to rediscovering the supposed distinction
between the art of love and lust and the methods in which both are expressed. Before I go on, I'd like to go forth as to retract every statement I've made comparing the two. Some say it's the duration, with love superceding lust, some say depth of sincerity and so on. I have the conviction lust is a lot more sincere. Any emotion evoked unvoluntarily is sincere. As is love, but much thought and pressure is applied to love by its practitioners. The definition is often altered, hence, it is often misrepresented by most, making it lose some portions of its sincerity. For the most part, the definition of lust is definite. In terms of duration, who is to say lust is not short-lived love? Or that love is not long-live lust? For a relationship to thrive and prosper, it's imperative that one must be sexually attracted to their partner; considering the fact that sexual attraction is the defining factor of the art of lust. I also have the conviction that both evoke and are filled with equal amounts of passion. The heart is the legitimate-mother of both. Besides, how often have you felt either emotion towards someone and questioned it?
Yes, lust is an emotion. It's engineered by the strength of passion
and sincerity, hence, it is an emotion. We seemingly have little to no control over choosing our whom or what we are attracted to. The heart is wild, powerful, irrational and illogical, therefore, it controls the wildest of all emotions; love, lust. I would include admiration, but it can be mothered by either, or. One shouldn't feel compelled to justify the morality of either or to expect one to yield more joy than the other and so on. In life, love, and lust equally, all that matters, for the most part, is that there's passion and sincerity. It is certain that love precedes lust, and lust precedes love. I say that to say this: despite of whichever consumes you, try to keep an open mind.