Never confuse lust for anything other than what it is, do you agree?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Lust is considered a negative emotion and rightly so. Lust is just that. Not to be confused with love. Lust can be healthy to some extent if it is taken as it is. Zia could have done so to. I agree with the author. Anyone in this world would take anything when offered and they see a benifit.

Many men and even women are unable to restrain themselves when it came to bodily pleasures. Yes, lust is different from love, and that is what Zia could not see through. She can't be blamed for having sexual feelings and going towards men other than Bryce to fulfill them (Bryce too is at fault as he could not understand her needs). But she could have kept the emotional connection only with Bryce and only satisfy her needs from the other one. The confusion that she had about lust and love got her messed up in a love triangle.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

In a way, I think Zia confused lust and love. She felt lust for Bryce and assumed he rejected her when he didn't want have sex with her. She also felt and acted upon lust when she agreed to go with Baxter to his place. There was no way that there could be a connection to produce love with Baxter. Bryce showed his emotional connection to Zia and how much he valued more than just her body. I started to hate Zia after her trip to New York.

I am glad to find someone who think alike. Yes, her connection to Bryce started with lust, but that was only from her side. Bryce loved her and valued her. He did not want to use her body. But that was what she expected from him. Maybe she did not love any men at all. Maybe all she needed was sex, and when she did not get that from one she went to another thinking that she was going after caring and acceptance. Seemingly Zia confused lust for many other feelings.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

In the book, definitely, I would say. Lust drove the characters and got them in situations that came with a price. I imagine things would have been far better for them if they had been able to reign in their lust a bit.

In reality, lust can be a stepping stone or a key to help unlock something deeper. Lust is easy, straightforward. Some people need to use it as a veil for more complex emotions and desires. It could go either way.

Lust was the main driving force of the whole book. Zia to Bryce, Zia to Baxter, the girls to their killer, all these connections began with lust. Maybe, as you said, that was because lust is easy, straightforward, and difficult to reign in. But everyone had to pay a price for what came after lust. It is not certain whether the murdered girls confused lust for anything else. But Zia, who needed caring and acceptance confused her lustful feelings towards other men as love and their love (especially) Bryce's as lust, and Baxter's lust for her body as love.

[Namuddu Erin]

I do accept with the author's ideas that "lust is lust". Lust can not be confused with any other word such as love.
I agree in the content when some one has been offered with anything to receive a benefit in this world. Zia was confused when she went to Baxter who cannot give what Bryce can provide.
The confusion that she experienced about lust and love troubled her into a love triangle.

[Sharill Rasowo]

In the book the sentiment that "lust is lust" made sense as it drove the plot of the story. However, in real life, there is often a nuance to it as many harbor other feelings that influence their behavior. I think lust was very bad for the characters of this story, as it blinded them to obvious warning signs.

[Dustin Stopher]

The quote is a little misguided for my tastes. It says that there’s not a man alive that wouldn’t take a woman up on her offer, but this characterizes males as more lustful and lacking in self-control, a characterization I disagree with. Both genders are equally prone to lust and lapses of judgment in a sexual context, and Zia is proof of this. I’d argue she was even more lustful than Baxter, who could have been using the sex mostly go exert power over Zia and make her subservient to him. Lust isn’t always a bad thing, but as the book shows, it can have negative consequences.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Never confuse lust for anything other than what it is. There isn’t a man alive that wouldn’t gladly take what you are so willing to offer.

(Epigraph 2, Location 53 of Kindle version)

The victims of the psychopathic killer had this confusion, and it cost them their lives. Zia too had it, and she was blinded by it and did not see the dark side of her lover. Was lust bad for most of the characters in this story? Does lust always carry just lust but nothing else? Do you agree with the author on this quote?

This topic is about the book, so the reply should refer to the book. (the mod).

There is already a counterexample in Bryce in the book, who is not willing to go down the lust path, and thinks long term from the start, believing that starting out that way will ruin the potential of the relationship. I believe that lust doesn't always carry lust, so as a rule of thumb it is not the harbinger of evil. Even in the book, Zia connects with the killer through email and phone conversations first, so the way I understood it, she had a connection with him before giving over to lust. That first part was as essential as the passion element in the story, playing a part in the conflict that was going on in her mind. I actually liked that it was set up in that way, giving it more depth, and in my opinion, making the conflict more realistic.

Bryce refused to go in the lustful pathway, so he lost Zia (though she came back to him). Do you suggest that not having lust in such occasions is bad?

And yes, she knew Baxter through emails. They had a connection. But is was not at a level to Zia to sexually involve with him. But when she went to him she went to that level and also she accepted him pushing her towards the extreme ends of sex. I don't think there was anything else than lust in those moments, and seemingly Zia knew that too, that lust is only lust but nothing else.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I do think lust is always bad because it implies a lack of humanity in it. The way I see it sexual attraction is good, but lust feels more like objectifying someone. Also, I agree with the quote; you should never confuse lust with anything other than what it is because you will find yourself in trouble.

I don't think lust or being lustful is a bad thing. Lust is defined as strong sexual desire. Anyone can have strong sexual desires but they should be able to control it and apply it appropriately. But lust alone is only lust and there is no love or any other feeling in that. Confusing lust with love is like seeking for a soulmate from a one night stand.

Zia was lustful towards Baxter. But she confused his lustful return gestures as love and recognition, and acceptance to her. That is what misled her.

[DTamara]

(Epigraph 2, Location 53 of Kindle version)

The victims of the psychopathic killer had this confusion, and it cost them their lives. Zia too had it, and she was blinded by it and did not see the dark side of her lover. Was lust bad for most of the characters in this story? Does lust always carry just lust but nothing else? Do you agree with the author on this quote?

This topic is about the book, so the reply should refer to the book. (the mod).

There is already a counterexample in Bryce in the book, who is not willing to go down the lust path, and thinks long term from the start, believing that starting out that way will ruin the potential of the relationship. I believe that lust doesn't always carry lust, so as a rule of thumb it is not the harbinger of evil. Even in the book, Zia connects with the killer through email and phone conversations first, so the way I understood it, she had a connection with him before giving over to lust. That first part was as essential as the passion element in the story, playing a part in the conflict that was going on in her mind. I actually liked that it was set up in that way, giving it more depth, and in my opinion, making the conflict more realistic.

Bryce refused to go in the lustful pathway, so he lost Zia (though she came back to him). Do you suggest that not having lust in such occasions is bad?

And yes, she knew Baxter through emails. They had a connection. But is was not at a level to Zia to sexually involve with him. But when she went to him she went to that level and also she accepted him pushing her towards the extreme ends of sex. I don't think there was anything else than lust in those moments, and seemingly Zia knew that too, that lust is only lust but nothing else.

In the case of Bryce, it was the "right" decision to not give in to lust quickly despite his struggles, because in the end they ended up together with Zia, also having a passionate relationship. So the message I get is the opposite, that not giving in to lust and taking the time is good and sustainable.

With Baxter, i felt like that initial connection was the basis of the conflict, although lust and physicality was a major part of the relationship or affair between Zia and Bax. I don't think the author says that lust is a bad thing in itself. It is a bit more sublime. The way I understood it, rushing into lust brings short term satisfaction and it is not a good basis for a relationship.

[Neshboy Aburi]

I mostly agree. Zia couldn't see Baxter for what he was because of the numerous lust-filled moments they had. In the real world though, I don't think lust alone can be the only driver of most love stories that go south.

[Jennifer Garcia 555]

I agree that lust is just lust. I also think that it can cloud your judgment. If you lust after someone you often fail to see their bad traits. You are too focused on the physical sexual attraction.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I do agree wirh the author that lust should not be made into anything more than what it is but at the same time it is quite important. Even in love there is some lust. The characters didn't succumb just because of lust but because Baxter knew how to charm anyone .

Well, the author has shown only those who fell for his charms. There has to be many who did not fell for him in a practical scenario. Baxter could have been a skilled charmer, yet the victims also were suggestible and they easily fell for him. Even Zia fell for him easily as she was filled with lust and could not fulfill her desires from Bryce. She confused her lust for a need to being accepted and that made her fall for Baxter and get into his trap.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I definitely agree with the author that lust is simply just lust. It doesn't matter what happens or the angle which you look at it from, there's a clear difference between love and lust. And, there's no twisting it. This was a case of lust, even though it was toxic. There's no disputing that fact.

That was for sure. Zia's acts were totally driven by lust. She felt lustful for Bryce at the first encounter. It is true that Bryce loved her but in return did Zia actually love him? I don't know. And when her sexual desires were refused she turned towards Baxter, and that act too was driven by lust. Maybe she thought Baxter loved her, but it was a mere confusion between love and lust. So these two should never be confused and they are two things and not a single thing.

[Fahad Afroz]

In the context of the book, lust is the driving force and shouldn't have been taken as anything else which cost the characters their life but in real life it really depends on the scenerio and is very subjective

[Khushboo Barwar]

If I were to answer this question in the perspective of the book, then yes! Lust is just lust and you shouldn’t be blinded by that, the way Zia was. But here’s the catch, in real life we see people whose love language is physical and that maybe be a of any reasons but to say that’s lust is not sensible. There are people who will feel separated or at a distance when not shared a physical connection with. So, I think lust carries more than just lust, more than just a mere physical connection.