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:)