Useful Lust

To love is to experience the infinite on earth. This is apparent as the taste of cheddar cheese, but I’ll prove it nonetheless.

For the lover, some is never enough. His is an all-or-nothing deal, for better or worse, in sickness or in health, and any statement that dares to render his love finite — that is, to give his love an observable ending point — is a contradiction and a squirm-inducing lie.

To prove my point, do your utmost to justify the following the statements:

“I’ll love you until I find some one better.”

“I’ll love for a year.”

“I’ll love you as long as you are rich/happy/healthy/attractive.”

“I’ll love you right up to the point of sleeping with you, but not to the point of holding your hand and feeding you soup when you’re a stinking, sweaty, crabby, feverish mess of a human being.”

If you find it impossible, don’t blame an inactive imagination. These are nonsensical statements, like square circles or Phish concerts without weed. If love has a point of termination it is not love. Therefore love is infinite, subject to no limitation or external determination.

Now I take the following as an axiom: Every human being desires to be treated with love. It follows that there is some innate reality about the human being that makes him an appropriate object of infinity, for love is infinite. What could it be? Could it be that the human being is not, in fact, a finite being destined and doomed to cease to be, but rather a creature made for infinity? Maybe, but that sounds an awful lot like religion, which — as we all know — has been largely discredited by the Internet.

So what about a human being makes him a worthy object of an infinity?


There is no use for a human being, as there is no use for Michelangelo’s Pieta, as there is no use for the vase of flowers on the kitchen counter or Bach’s cello suites swelling in ecstasy around your house. Beautiful objects exist for their own sake. They do not serve some useful end. (If they do, it is a merely secondary end. The Basilica of Sacre Coeur may be “useful” for driving tourism and housing nuns, but it’s self-evident that if the Basilica did neither of those things it would still be valuable and awe-inspiring. Why? Because beauty, that’s why.)

Humans have value in the simple fact that they are. We’d have few qualms over a farmer putting down a packhorse that had broken its leg and could no longer work. We’d have major qualmage about putting down a human who could no longer work. The value of human beings lies not in their use, but in their very being. Humans are useless, that is, they contain within themselves no termination of value.

When dealing with human beings there is no: “You are good so long as you ______” or “You have ultimate value because _______” All we can say is: “You are good. You have value.”

When this truth is not prevalent, it is an age of injustice. Slavery treats human beings as useful. Unjust wages do the same.

So let’s catch up. Human beings, in that there is no conceivable end-point for their value, are the appropriate objects for love, for which there is no conceivable end-point. Beauty awakens love. Love responds to beauty. Infinity meets infinity and we’re all like:

Lust is wrong precisely in that it is a subtle twist within the human heart that makes an object of love useful. Lust looks on a naked woman, who is beautiful and therefore useless, and devises for her a use — arousal, orgasm, psychological pleasure, etc. When a human being has been given a use, they may be judged insofar as they perform, as the slave whose entire being has been defined as useful-to-another may be judged entirely by how well he works.

Lust replaces the infinite exchange between beauty and love for one of use and payment. Lust invites — for the first time in loving relation — the opportunity for disappointment and disgust. A post on 9gag (whatever, leave me alone) illustrated this to me:

Lust makes it possible for something beautiful to be “used up”. It makes the human person useful, and when a useful object has performed its use it is no longer desired. No one needs a screwdriver once the screws have been turned.

Lust even opens the door to hatred of the person lusted after, for there is something detestable about a tool that cannot or will not perform its function. Lust tempts us to abuse humans over what we see as their inability or unwillingness to live out their use, just as we might throw an uncooperative hammer or nail across a room for its inability to do the same. Because porn is useful, it is philosophically impossible to love. We can only use it or hate it.

The transaction of lust has its termination. Gone is infinity, in which infinite love adores infinite beauty, ushering us to make the bold claims of forever and ever, till death do us part.

Lust makes useful. It denies that humans are beautiful (which is to say they are useless). It ends the infinity of love by giving love a point of termination. Thus the face of lust always looks pissed off, judgmental and disgusted at you from the magazine rack. Like you stepped on Meghan Fox’s toes or something:

What other gaze could possibly be appropriate? It is the evaluation of the usefulness of another human being, a falsehood through and through.

The Art of Dying
Bettering Your Boring Christian Playlist: Jenny & Tyler
What We're Doing In Steubenville
Millennial Misery
  • Jen

    i agree, but couldnt you say that beauty has a use too? it is pleasurable to stare at a pretty painting, its pleasurable to just look at a beautiful person.

    • Marc Barnes

      What you’re saying seems to amount to a tautology: We love beauty because we love to experience beauty. Could it not be equally true that you don’t love beauty for the “pleasure” it brings you, you love beauty for beauty and the fulfillment of this love is “pleasurable”? Does the distinction make sense?

      • Christina Heath

        I think that is what Jen was saying. But that would still qualify as something closer to lust than love if that was it. It dosent bring pleasure to die, which is why Christ said there is no greater love than to die for your friend. It is as close a syou can get to seperating youself from all benifits to you. If you can still love in that case, then your love was truly for the other person, not for what you get frome loving them.

    • Rivka

      I think there can be a use to beauty, it’s just that it’s usefulness cannot be the primary reason we love it.

  • Claude

    I don’t think Cosmo Girl is lustful, just hungry,

    • James H, London

      Heh! Yeah, that Apple Mac diet is a killer! :)

      • Claude

        : )

  • Maria

    What’s 9gag? :P

    • Matt G

      An alleged humor website ;-)

  • Rhoslyn

    I like your post, but I can’t bring myself to agree with humans being valuable because of their beauty. I can’t put my finger on it exactly, so it’s difficult for me to explain why I don’t agree, but I know that is wrong. I value human beings even when I do not think they are beautiful.

    • Fmukhar

      That’s the thing, all living creatures, made in God’s image and in His beauty is therefore themselves beautiful. Don’t mistake your attraction for someone with their beauty.

      • Rhoslyn

        Yes, that’s what I think but BadCatholic doesn’t elaborate on what he defines as beauty. I think humans are beautiful because they are made by God and because they are therefore unique. I don’t look at someone and think, ‘That person is made in the image of God, and God is beautiful’. If I cry over the death of someone I have never known it’s because I know there will never be another person like that again. THAT is their beauty.

    • Marc Barnes

      Beauty is not attractiveness. Beauty IS that quality of uselessness. ( Amongst other things: )

      • Rhoslyn

        Ok, but I didn’t say that. I don’t think beauty comes into it when you really get into why someone is attractive.

        • Kate Hazen

          Then what is beauty?

    • Sheila Fiorella

      We are marvelously and beautifully made in the image of God, regardless of the ugly ways in which we sometimes behave.

  • Agnes Kulach


  • Arizona Mike

    You are becoming one of my favorite Catholic bloggers.

  • Kate Hazen

    Fyodor was right. Beauty will save the world.

  • Dave Radley

    Hi Marc,

    Thank you for the post.

    I’ve heard many complaints about the quality of contemporary Catholic music, in peticular, the music at mass. You can tell where the heart of the composer is when you hear the music of the old missal contorting itself, struggling to match the rhythm of the new missal, while living up to its old reputation of disconnect. In the modern composer’s attempt to make music useful, or Catholic, more times than not the musical beauty is completely lost. The word for that is LAZY. I am still searching for the solution to this problem.

    I continually find useful beauty in the lyrical and musical messages of Tom Waits and the stories of Flannary O’Connor. The effect of these examples is similar to the effects ofseeing and meditating upon the Crucifix, the Pieta, the battling stones in the walls of a cathedral (compare to the smooth, white-washed, pasteurized, i’m-okay-you’re-okay, self-helpy walls inside a modern super church).

    I argue that beauty is the only useful thing we Catholics have.

  • Dave Radley

    Beauty terms a specific kind of reaction that brings into communion the participant with the infinite Good. The reaction that is beauty involves consumption and compenetrative unity.

    For instance, we use the beautiful design of our minds and bodies to contemplate and praise God. We consume the personified object of God to be in communion with Him. As we use and consume beautiful music in order to elevate our souls, we mimic the use of the Mass and the consumption of the Eucharist.

    Don’t you think beauty is the only reaction that we have to use as a vehicle to be in communion with the infinite God?

    Our culture sucks now because it is desensitized to beauty. That’s why you don’t see any giant gorrillas climbing the Empire State Building anymore.

  • Wrestling_Enkidu

    “To give his love an observable ending point — is a contradiction and a squirm-inducing lie”

    I can falsify your entire post with one sentence: I will love you until I am dead and can love no more.

    Therefore love is not necessarily infinite, and the foundation of your post is invalid.

    • John

      That, my dear, is why we teach that the soul is immortal, and, after death, will continue loving, truly and forever, in heaven.

      • Nolan

        Thanks for the comment, my sweet. Still, irrespective of the existence of the immortal soul, Marc’s claim is still falsified because I do not personally believe in the immortal soul, and can give an observable ending point to love without contradicting myself, inducing self-squirms, or even lying. My statement is not a square circle, or a weedless Phish concert, but a logically consistent statement, even if the soul were immortal.

        Marc’s argument that love is infinite is invalid.

        • David

          Everything in your experience is finite, nothing exists after your personal experience of it ends? How do you know? And contrarily, if you say everything continues after your experience of it ends, how do you know?

          • Nolan

            I’d say that subjective experiences or feelings like love, or sight, or hunger end when I no longer have any personal experiences. I think things not dependent on my mind do continue after my experience of them end, because other people who also have subjective experiences have died, and the subjects of their experiences have continued to exist.

          • Michael Poston

            To begin with, the so-called on sentence “sound-byte” rebuttal of the entire argument presented above really does not accomplish that at all. Be wary of any form of argumentation that seeks to topple a well crafted structure in one sentence. Such a method reeks of logical fallacies and inflammatory language.

            As to the central issue at hand, Nolan your issue does not lie in believing in infinite love per se, but rather in any form of true transcendence at all. The experience of love understood in the classical sense necessitates by very definition an infinite dimension. This in large part is the very reason why Plato and his student Aristotle saw the need for a transcendent and eternal plane. Therefore, the question that you should be asking is not: is love infinite? Rather, is there anything beyond the immanent, physical world approachable through empirical science?

            In answer to that question, I refer to the debate between Brendan Purcell and Richard Dawkins wherein Purcell spoke to Dawkins about his tragically deceased young daughter. Purcell challenged Dawkins asking if he believed that the love that he felt for his daughter endured and persisted despite her untimely death. Dawkins affirmed very much so that he still experienced love for his daughter very intensely. Purcell then asked whether he would use physics or the like to study that phenomenon. Dawkins replied absolutely not that such love is beyond the scope of all empirical science. Purcell then asked: why then do you do that with God?

          • Nolan


            Arguments, even complex ones, can in fact be falsified in a single sentence, and often they are. One could make a long, complex argument that all swans must be white, but pointing out a single counter-example, a black swan, is enough to falsify the argument, and can be done in a single sentence.

            Similarly, Marc seems to claim that love is necessarily infinite, and can’t possibly be comprehended as finite. I pointed out a counter-example and did in fact falsify his claim in a single sentence without resorting to any logical fallacy.

            Your assumption that Marc’s argument has a “well crafted structure” is exactly what I am calling into question. Because I can falsify it in one sentence, it is not in fact well crafted.

            If you think I have committed a logical fallacy, or used inflammatory language, I would appreciate you providing specifics, instead of making nebulous claims that my arguments reek of things. Be wary of any form of argumentation that does not actually address claims, but instead makes vague, dismissive assertions without providing justification.

            As for your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, that seems a bit like changing the topic. Marc argued for the necessary infinity of love, and I responded to that. Still, I can respond to you simply by saying that I have no problem with love like Dawkins’ being studied (I’ve never seen the debate, so I’ll take your word for what he said). I don’t actually think love like Dawkins’ is fully outside of the scope of science.

          • EpicusMontaigne

            I can falsify your entire post with one sentence: I will love you until I am dead and can love no more.

            This is an interesting loophole, but fails a self-logic test similar to the one about an all powerful being who can make a burrito too hot for him to eat it, albeit more subtle.

            As someone above correctly pointed out, If you believe you die and cease to exist, then you are not loving, true. But you are not not loving either. Your being has terminated completely, and you loved for eternity as far as your being was concerned. Which leads into the other rebuttal…

            Marc’s argument is based on the idea of an eternity, a timeless space, and love belongs to that timeless space. If humans don’t belong to that timeless space, then they really couldn’t love at all. So for human beings to actually love, they must exist in that timeless space, with a timeless love.

          • Nolan

            Epicus (I like your name), I was sort of expecting a comment like yours at some point. It falls into the trap of question begging (or no true scotsman fallacy). Put simply, your argument is assuming from the start what it ought to be arguing for.

            What you are doing is defining love as infinite, and using that to try to answer my counter-example. This is like in my black swan example above, I point to a black swan as a counter-example, and the other person replies “that cannot be a swan, because swans are always white. If it’s black, therefore it’s not a swan.” He assumes swans are always white from the start (begging the question), instead of looking into reality to see whether or not swans actually are always white.

            Similarly, I pointed to a counter-example to Marc’s claim, showing that love can in fact be finite. Your response is “that cannot be love, because love is always infinite.” That has yet to be established, and cannot be simply assumed from the outset. Even Marc seems to acknowledge this, because at least he attempted to present evidence for his claim.

            If we look into reality at the examples of things we call “love,” we can use that term without including any necessary infinity. This is what my example established, and in doing so, falsified Marc’s claim that finite love is inherently contradictory.

          • Helpful

            Nolan, I believe this idea has been skirted around in many responses to you, but I haven’t seen it said outright, so I’ll do that. Apologies if I’m repeating someone else.
            If you tell someone you will love them until you die and cease to exist so you can no longer love, that does not mean love is finite. Merely your ability to love is finite. While I acknowledge the fact that love may end when you cease to be able to love, there is no proof that it actually does. Marc is not arguing that a human being’s ability to love is infinite, he is merely arguing that love itself is infinite. As he has stated in the past, no one simply says, “That is enough love for me, I’m done.” Then it isn’t truly love. Instead, people continue to love until they cease to be, and thus lose their ability to love. Unlike other things such as hunger (which can be sated) or thirst (which can be quenched) love does not have an end.
            I feel l like I’m expressing myself poorly and I apologize for that, so I’ll try to summarize it one more time. Since love is an action that must be performed by something that exists, if we cease to exist, we would no longer be able to love. That does not mean that we have “filled our love,” or that love has somehow ended, however. It simply means that we can no longer love by virtue of our existence changing. If we don’t cease to exist, however, we won’t stop loving, because we will still be able to.

          • Nolan

            Helpful, I think you’ve expressed yourself just fine. No need to apologize.

            Marc certainly has attempted to work his way to the conclusion that love is necessarily infinite in many ways, and I believe I’ve criticized a healthy portion of them. My responses above merely address his latest line of argument in this post, which I think fails for the reasons I pointed out.

            “Marc is not arguing that a human being’s ability to love is infinite, he is merely arguing that love itself is infinite.”

            Marc can correct, me, but your statement above appears to be false. Let’s look at how Marc actually reasoned towards his point in this post. He said (sorry for the weird double quotes):

            “any statement that dares to render his love finite — that is, to give his love an observable ending point — is a contradiction and a squirm-inducing lie. To prove my point, do your utmost to justify the following the statements: “I’ll love you until I find some one better.” “I’ll love for a year.”

            He followed up:

            “These are nonsensical statements, like square circles or Phish concerts without weed. If love has a point of termination it is not love. Therefore love is infinite, subject to no limitation or external determination.”

            In sum, Marc’s evidence here that love is infinite is that it is self-contradictory to think that our personal feelings of love be given a termination point. My counter-example proved that it is not self-contradictory to think that our personal feelings of love be given a termination point. Therefore Marc’s argument fails.

            My comments do not prove that love has to be finite, but it does show that Marc’s argument that it is infinite is faulty, and no reasonable person should accept it.

          • Helpful

            It seems I did fail in expressing myself after all.

            “Any statement that dares to render his love finite — that is, to give his love an observable ending point — is a contradiction and a squirm-inducing lie.

            This means that the love itself must be given an observable ending point. Not our ability to love, which ends if we cease to exist, but our love itself. There is a difference between the two and that makes….wait for it…..all the difference.

            Marc is not arguing that our ability to love has no endpoint. However, he does argue that our love itself has no endpoint. You have helped to prove this point. There is no way love can actually end. The only thing that can end is our ability to love, due to other circumstances than love itself ending.

          • Nolan

            I don’t see how I’ve “helped to prove this point.” I really haven’t. Further, I haven’t seen you establish that love continues after our ability to love ends. It looks like you are assuming this is true, and then expecting logical proof you are wrong. I still haven’t seen any good reasons to actually think this is the case without assuming it from the start.

          • Helpful

            Marc has already established that love continues after our ability to love ends. The only thing you could think of to falsify his claim was the say love ends when our ability to love ends, but you really have no proof of that. We do stop loving, but it’s not because love ends.

        • Marc Barnes

          Its consistent as long as you have the faith to believe you understand what you say when you say “I will cease to be”. But since you have no experience of non-being — nor ever could because you are, by nature, a being — it is always a leap of faith. It may certainly be falsified for you, as in, you personally have made a leap of faith and decided that after your death you will experience that which you cannot fathom except by faith — non-being — and thus you can “imagine” an end-point to love. But the invalidation of my claim ends with you.

          • Nolan

            Marc, it’s not necessary to experience something to sufficiently understand it. I never experienced being blind, but I can still understand (not perfectly, but well enough) that it is a lack of sight. I am justified in saying that my sight will “cease to be” if I lose my eyeballs, even having never experienced blindness. There is no leap of faith involved.

            Similarly, I don’t have to experience non-being to understand it well enough as the lack of any experience whatsoever, and maintain that with the loss of brain functioning, experience will cease.. Again, no leap of faith involved.

            Even if the afterlife exists, anyone can, with a little thought, still comprehend finite love without contradiction. Your argument remains universally falsified, even for those who believe in an eternal soul.

          • AttentionDeficitCatholic

            I would say that you have experienced blindness, if in no other way than having closed your eyes. The closing of your eyes, or any other thing you may have experienced which could have frustrated your sight, is the experience that you draw on when you understand blindness.

            The closest that one comes to experiencing non-being is, in my opinion, a dreamless sleep, but to say that we “experience” that is a bit of a stretch, as there are no actual experiences gained from a dreamless sleep, just a “hole” in our conscious memories.

            Also, I personally find it impossible to comprehend a finite love. Can you explain to me what a finite love could be, other than a love that lasts until the end of the existence of the lover (which I do not count, as it does not make love finite, it merely makes man too finite to love infinitely).

          • Nolan

            Blindness, it seems by definition, cannot be experienced, since it is a lack of experience (sight), not an experience in itself. So that pertains to your idea of a dreamless sleep, which is a lack of nearly all experiences. We can comprehend lacking experiences, which is enough to make non-existence understandable to some extent, and not a leap of faith to believe it occurs.

            As for your last paragraph, I don’t really see how a love that ends can still be infinite. I love while I live and experience. Then I die, and I stop loving. How is this not finite?

            You also seem to contradict yourself. You say that man is “too finite to love infinitely.” That sounds like an acknowledgement that man’s love is in fact finite. Therefore man’s love is an example of finite love.

            I don’t think you have any good reason to claim that non-existence does “not count” as making love finite.

          • Rivka

            I think the use of the word “infinite” was an overly enthusiastic exaggeration. It’s still a good post.

    • Jared

      While you may not describe love as infinite (I’d say you’re wrong, but that’s irrelevant for now), I fail to see how your post disproves Marc’s. If “I will love you as long as I exist” is the only end point that makes sense, then love is still a selfless, “useless”, complete giving of yourself to another, and lust is still using the other for your own satisfaction.

      Granted, if love is finite, then it is a strange thing, but you didn’t falsify Marc’s post.

  • GK Student

    Might I interject? I don’t think the pleasure of beauty, and even the expectation for it, is what’s wrong in our culture – or even the world for that matter. Except, really, by what approach a culture – and the world or you or I (our disposition)- has to what pleasure towards and out of beauty.

    In one of Chestertons’ (Gilbert Keith Chesterton – The Innocence of Father Brown) Father Brown Mysteries “The Hammer of God” (referring to both the televised drama and the book), a priest (I think he may have been Anglican, but I am not sure) looked down on his brother (i.e. the world of men) who was sleeping with another man’s wife while her husband was away (I think her husband was either Welsh or Scottish who kept going to religious meeting – funny thing is, being my family has mostly an English, Irish, and Scottish background, the man looks a lot like one of my cousins – LOL) – anyways, since the priest knows his brother has been sleeping with another man’s wife, he feels from looking down from the steeple of the Church to pronounce judgement upon men (particularly his brother.) So, he takes a black smith’s hammer (belonging to the man whose wife is at home – he is a black smith as well), and [the priest] either flings or drops it down upon his brother’s head. His brother instantly dies from the blow of the hammer to his head.

    A sad tragedy indeed: He [the priest] wasn’t his brother’s keeper, but his judge (as one of the town’s woman said to him in dismay of him doing nothing to draw his brother to penance.) And sadly, that’s what the modern view of beauty really leads us to, to judge the world on a superior terrace standing above other men and looking down at them doing what is evil and wrong. When the beauty and splendor of God’s image and likeness is led to “lust”, the beauty of the family is seen as destroyed, damaged, and ruined (unrecoverable and unsalvage-able); and therefore, the remedying re-action of playing judge of each person’s soul becomes the new view. That is, beauty should no longer be pleasurable to men so that they might be redeemed in way as the prodigal son is seen in the splendor and image of the family returned to what it was. And as such; the modern contrary to that image, no man should be allowed any pleasure of beauty.

    Take a look at what progressive’s do today. They encourage all the lustful habits of men by the sounding call of “freedom of love” and “freedom of expression.” But, what they really get are lustful men aroused by beauty under the impression that the only access to that beauty is through devouring (like the Vikings.) So, when these progressive’s have gotten as far as they want to create and encourage disturbed men (by making them disturbed – the implicit admission of the fall), their next step is to judge them (as the priest looked upon his brother) and issue their judgements with severe punishments. The progressive’s are a sad tragedy; they really become the religious extremists. Or, if you will, the secular pharisee.

    Beauty brings pleasure in its’ most uncompromising form (like our Blessed Mother born Immaculate perpetually through her whole life, and the remedying affect of the Sistine Chapel.) Beauty is to devour you, the onlooker; not the other way around.

    Vikings pillaged and devoured all that was beautiful, because they were never able to be devoured by it. When men see other men, and all the families of men, and devour them, they do not look up at beauty (like the splendor of the sunshine in the morning) and stunned by the sight of something remarkably different than anything else on earth. Rather, they look down as though beauty had to be taken in the most perverse way (Read Judges: at the terror brought upon the Concubines; all the way to Herrod: which imagery is seen in Revelation when the Dragon went after the woman bearing a child and all of the Holy Innocence in labor pains – she, Our Lady who had been crowned with Twelve Stars upon her head, bathed with the light of the sun, and the moon at her feet.)

    What is beautiful, in the shallow view today, is no longer the remedying affect. Worse, it is now being looked at as the cause of disease because of fallen men who are being treated not as patient’s in need of a cure; they are, in fact to the contrary, treated as the disease. And, since they are made in that beauty [the image and likeness of God their Creator (the Blessed Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.)], the most detestable of men now look upon them as something wrong altogether.

    Sick men who don’t think they need a cure are onlookers as Herrod and tthe Dragon went after the Holy Innocent and Mary. All these cruel and wicked men.

    • David

      good one (I agree, good one)

  • question

    what about this limit to love: I love you until you hurt me deeply. I can forgive you, but I might not love you again. That to me makes sense.

    • EpicusMontaigne

      Like we hurt Christ? Deeply, every day, but He loves us still. So if you can’t love through the hurt, it’s not love. Love is truly a heroic action.

    • Blastus

      Think of it like this, in a world of many people, if someone hurts you so badly that you cannot see a recourse for them. Then perhaps they do not love you and instead either lust or lack in some way. Your loving duty at this point is to forgive them and move on instead of staying or trying to stay in some dysfunctional relationship.

      Just like the first line said, some is not enough. If the other person doesn’t love you deeply then move along to someone better. Trust me, if i exist, and this blog exists, it means there are other people willing and wanting someone more.

  • Mitchell

    I’ve a bit of a problem with your definition of beauty, if I were to throw some fish guts, dog poop and MacDonald’s meat into a bucket, freeze it and leave it out in my living room, it would not a beautiful mantle piece, it would exist, and it would be useless, but it would be darn well ugly

    • MarytheDefender

      Something beautiful is useless
      But something useless isn’t always beautiful

      • Rivka

        all cats are mammals. Not all mammals are cats.

  • Jude

    Marc, you should be a saint. You should.

  • Blastus

    I have only one thing to say. I agree with many of your notions (save the exaggerations). However i disagree that love is infinite for the person desiring. Dreamers can dream of fantasies that will never be fulfilled or end up being fulfilled in orgasm.

    It cannot only be a result of one person loving another. One sided love is not infinite.

    Unlike art or beauty that is impersonally and unconsciously felt towards the infinite love is personal and co-created.

    Infinite love and its deep satisfactions come when both people strive together for this longing to be fulfilled. The desire may hint at infinity but it means little in ways of reaching the infinite to fulfill as to be fulfilled unless both come together simultaneously.

    Simply put, no one sided love. Love in its fullest is not just ever deeply wanting, it is mutual and can only actually come about when it is mutually acted on.

  • Ejidio Kariuki

    I will steal some of this and post on my facebook page.good wisdom indeed.