[Guest]

Mkay, so here's my grievance. i have loved my boyfriend Nick, since the moment I laid eyes on him, and he doesn't believe me. He says, "Love at first sight is bullsh*t." Well I say it's not. How else can you explain the way I feel about him? The feelings are so strong and he returns them just as strongly. Thoughts and comments??? Gripes and greivances? Concerns and questions?

[Guest]

and yes i know this site is for math and logic and stuff but i need opinions.

[curr3nt]

The "site" isn't for math and logic. But this section of the forum is...

I'd suggest that this topic would fit well in the Miscellaneous -> Other section.

And...no I do not believe in love at first sight or "love" in general.

[Molly Mae]

The "site" isn't for math and logic. But this section of the forum is...

I'd suggest that this topic would fit well in the Miscellaneous -> Other section.

And...no I do not believe in love at first sight or "love" in general.

Agreed on all points. I'll bypass the first few, though, and get to the heart of the problem.

Let's collectively define "love".

Blah-blah-blah, it's just chemicals. Great.

Which chemicals? How many of each chemical before we can classify it as love?

@White: Can you send me blood and tissue samples of both you and Nick from the following times:

1. A standard boring day

2. Taken precisely when you first saw each other

3. A typical time you see each other

We need a formula for love.

L = (C₁ + C₂) * (I + B/A)

L = Love

C₁ = Ability to Cook

C₂ = Ability to Clean

I = Intellect

B = Beauty

A = Age in years - 17

If L > 100, there is an argument that love exists between two people (or at least one way). We'll measure those chemicals and come up with a more accurate scale.

[Guest]

SAGE SAGE

[Molly Mae]

Love = (Dopamine + Norepinephrine)/Serotonin

???

[curr3nt]

You are only looking at the lust side of love Molly...

If you consider "love" in the form of social behavior then maybe you could choose to love someone at first sight. Quick determining at the subconsious level that a person would be useful for protection, social statis and/or procreation.

From original comments made I'm thinking it is a combination of the two from her side and lust from his side.

edit - Do many men approach love from any other way? Maybe social statis... As long as they have "love" in the form of a family/friend structure is there any other reason to branch out?

Edited April 28, 2011 by curr3nt

[Guest]

Mkay, so here's my grievance. i have loved my boyfriend Nick, since the moment I laid eyes on him, and he doesn't believe me. He says, "Love at first sight is bullsh*t." Well I say it's not. How else can you explain the way I feel about him? The feelings are so strong and he returns them just as strongly. Thoughts and comments??? Gripes and greivances? Concerns and questions?

Ok--I've researched it online. Yes, love at first sight does exist, kinda. Yes. Love at first sight is the most dramatic example of infatuation, a chemical phase of love! Wow!

Read more http://www.kgbanswers.com/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-love-at-first-sight/4727905#ixzz1KqZkqv8K

Also, there is other scientific research:

Evolutionary psychologists have found evidence that ovulation heightens women's response to the pheromone androstenol—a contributor to male body odor—and to the sight of strong male facial features, ones that emphasize secondary sex characteristics, such as an angled chin or a large forehead.

Geneticists have tackled a question that has perplexed humanity since the dawn of time: does love at first sight truly exist? Maybe, according to a study published in the April 2009 issue of the journal GENETICS. A team of scientists from the United States and Australia say they have discovered that, at the genetic level, some males and females are more compatible than others, and that this compatibility plays an important role in mate selection, mating outcomes, and future reproductive behaviors. In experiments involving fruit flies, the researchers found that before mating, females experience what amounts to "genetic priming," making them more likely to mate with certain males over others

I'm sure there's more...just google scientific explanations for love at first sight...gotta get back to work.

Edited April 28, 2011 by homemadegoodness

[Guest]

Agreed on all points. I'll bypass the first few, though, and get to the heart of the problem.

Let's collectively define "love".

Blah-blah-blah, it's just chemicals. Great.

Which chemicals? How many of each chemical before we can classify it as love?

@White: Can you send me blood and tissue samples of both you and Nick from the following times:

1. A standard boring day

2. Taken precisely when you first saw each other

3. A typical time you see each other

We need a formula for love.

L = (C₁ + C₂) * (I + B/A)

L = Love

C₁ = Ability to Cook

C₂ = Ability to Clean

I = Intellect

B = Beauty

A = Age in years - 17

If L > 100, there is an argument that love exists between two people (or at least one way). We'll measure those chemicals and come up with a more accurate scale.

Wait so if age was 17 then A=0 which means L=infinity?

[Guest]

For the record, I believe in love, but 'love at first site' is a literary device used to 'fast forward' a story. Be careful not to confuse passion (not necessarily lust, although lust can play a part of passion) with love (even though passion can be a part of love).

At the end of the day, passion, attraction, and lust make good times amazing. There is excitement, energy, interaction, etc. It's on the days when you are fighting, at wit's end, emotionally worn out, and considering calling it quits when love keeps you together. And that can't be made up after a day or two because you don't have anything 'on the line' at that point. There's no formula, but I was always of the mentality that those who rush 'to be in love' are often some of the quickest falling out of it.

[curr3nt]

For the record, I believe in love, but 'love at first site' is a literary device used to 'fast forward' a story. Be careful not to confuse passion (not necessarily lust, although lust can play a part of passion) with love (even though passion can be a part of love).

At the end of the day, passion, attraction, and lust make good times amazing. There is excitement, energy, interaction, etc. It's on the days when you are fighting, at wit's end, emotionally worn out, and considering calling it quits when love keeps you together. And that can't be made up after a day or two because you don't have anything 'on the line' at that point. There's no formula, but I was always of the mentality that those who rush 'to be in love' are often some of the quickest falling out of it.

This definition of love can't be chemical based or at least not the same chemicals. It could be triggered by fear of loneliness, protection or loss of social status and the person lies to themself and calls it love.

-----

At the end of the day...I blame the Disney Princesses.

[Molly Mae]

Ok--I've researched it online. Yes, love at first sight does exist, kinda. Yes. Love at first sight is the most dramatic example of infatuation, a chemical phase of love! Wow!

Read more http://www.kgbanswers.com/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-love-at-first-sight/4727905#ixzz1KqZkqv8K

Also, there is other scientific research:

Evolutionary psychologists have found evidence that ovulation heightens women's response to the pheromone androstenol—a contributor to male body odor—and to the sight of strong male facial features, ones that emphasize secondary sex characteristics, such as an angled chin or a large forehead.

Geneticists have tackled a question that has perplexed humanity since the dawn of time: does love at first sight truly exist? Maybe, according to a study published in the April 2009 issue of the journal GENETICS. A team of scientists from the United States and Australia say they have discovered that, at the genetic level, some males and females are more compatible than others, and that this compatibility plays an important role in mate selection, mating outcomes, and future reproductive behaviors. In experiments involving fruit flies, the researchers found that before mating, females experience what amounts to "genetic priming," making them more likely to mate with certain males over others

I'm sure there's more...just google scientific explanations for love at first sight...gotta get back to work.

Genetics is still a largely misunderstood field.

Wait so if age was 17 then A=0 which means L=infinity?

(High school girls! High school girls!)

There's no formula,...

Check page 1. :/

This definition of love can't be chemical based or at least not the same chemicals. It could be triggered by fear of loneliness, protection or loss of social status and the person lies to themself and calls it love.

-----

At the end of the day...I blame the Disney Princesses.

That's the psychiatrist/psychologist talking. Pseudosciences, both of them. (They're actually more liberal arts...)

But yes. We can blame the Princesses. None of them cook. They don't deserve love.

[Guest]

So here is my take for those who care.

Love at first sight does exist, but not in the romantic sense. However, I loved each of my children before I laid eyes on any of them. And at first sight that love magnified. And I am sure that love was returned when they first laid eyes on me.

Here's the problem White. I believe you love Nick. Moreover, I believe you felt some tingle, flushness etc, when you first saw him. That does not mean you fell in love at first sight. How many times have you felt the same way upon seeing another guy for the first time, only to find they are jerks, slobs, gay, have a strange Mr T obsession, whatever...just that it didn't evolve into love. So there it is. A seed of love may be planted at first sight...but it is not love.

Edited April 28, 2011 by maurice

[Molly Mae]

So here is my take for those who care.

Love at first sight does exist, but not in the romantic sense. However, I loved each of my children before I laid eyes on any of them. And at first sight that love magnified. And I am sure that love was returned when they first laid eyes on me.

Here's the problem White. I believe you love Nick. Moreover, I believe you felt some tingle, flushness etc, when you first saw him. That does not mean you fell in love at first sight. How many times have you felt the same way upon seeing another guy for the first time, only to find they are jerks, slobs, gay whatever...just that it didn't evolve into love. So there it is. A seed of love may be planted at first sight...but it is not love.

I always give you the green +, Mo. <3

[Guest]

I always give you the green +, Mo. <3

I actually was going to use you as an example...didn't care much for you at "first sight", but then we spent some banter time together and look what has blossomed.

[Molly Mae]

...didn't care much for you at "first sight"...

A-whaaaaaa???

=P

See, kids? Life is full of surprises. And some you'll never know until you walk around a corner and see Kevin Sorbo. He's so hot. Dibs.

I'd like to start a thread (probably on MM) called "Love at Hind Sight"

It's gonna be sad.

More on-topic: A group of "researchers" actually proved that love exists.

And since I can't link to Youtube, here's their findings: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRYNYb30nxU

Edited April 28, 2011 by Molly Mae

[Aaryan]

love aint real... its all an illusion.

However, one of those illusions is pretty deceptive.

[Guest]

Love is an art... very difficult it is to define or even set parameters, success guaranteed formulas, etc.

[peace*out]

I wonder what's charlie's opinion...

Honestly, i think it is chemicals, but i think, that "love" is real. There is "love" but many people call something "love" when it isnt.

[peace*out]

This definition of love can't be chemical based or at least not the same chemicals. It could be triggered by fear of loneliness, protection or loss of social status and the person lies to themself and calls it love.

-----

At the end of the day...I blame the Disney Princesses.

i agree somewhat, because at the end of the day its all chemicals and reactions in our brains, right?.

----------

I agree totally. So many people think that guys will be their white knight. This is why Mulan is my favorite, because even though she has a guy in the end, she earned it, and didnt just be all pretty.

[unreality]

look up oxytocin

also,

[Guest]

Love may be an illusion, yet we still have lots of posts on that forum, don't we?

I agree with Maurice's def. of love at first sight. I don't truly enjoy it when talking about uncertainty, because you hardly know the person, you're just judging them on their looks, which is a glamorized version of today's love as pursued by TV.

I blame disney, but also Romcoms. Those things some may call cinema hardly have any plot, and go nowhere. Now if you abide that, no wonder you're going to be lost.

[Molly Mae]

@Q: I agree. But if my kid was ugly or had Down Syndrome, it would likely "catch" SIDS, as well.

Is that messed up?

[EDM]

I believe in love at first sight, and that electric current thing mentioned in twilight...()

It definitely does exist, but it fits only if both of them look at each other's eyes.......

Yes, mushy romantic......

[Quag]

i believe in LUst at first sight, untill you talk to someone you cannot knwo their personality or to put it more mushily you cannot knwo if they are your soulmate. I was instantly attracted to my wife but it wasnt till we had our first date that I KNEW she was the one.

[Molly Mae]

Soulmates. A sympathetic binding between two people.

I don't believe in it.