Love

[Armfelt]

I am 16 years old and can honestly say that I have never “been in love”, sure I have felt sexual attraction towards women and felt that certain females are really good company and that platonic love on a level of a deep friendship is possible, but I can not with a straight face claim that I have “been in love” in the way that people usually describe it as a deep ineffable feeling.

Even more confusing for me is the term “love at first sight”. And that feelings of love will never die. Sure, I can have the “I’d like to hit that” feeling when for the first time seeing a woman, but how the hell are people supposed to feel any other affection than lust for a people that they have only just seen? What if the person later turns out to be, let us say a serial killer, would I still lover her? (no I wouldn’t)

Love in general is a little more understandable for me since I probably could feel affection on a very deep level for a partner that I have known for a long time (though I have not felt this way yet), but not in the way of putting her needs before mine, like people in books and movies do when they are in love. I searched wikipedia for the definition of “true love” and came up with this:

“Usually, true love is described as love without condition, motive or attachment, loving someone just because they are themselves, not because of their appearance, actions, or other superficial factors. Such shallow reasons for affection, those that only appear on the surface, are often considered infatuation or puppy love, which are less profound and meaningful than true love.
People acting on the basis of what they see as 'true' love will often set aside their own well being for the safety and happiness of their lover, even though their relationship may not be formalized or reciprocated. Sometimes, this idea and its associated feelings are strong enough to inspire acts of suicidal self-sacrifice as in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.”

To me the way that Romeo and Juliet act in the play of the same name is simply retarded. Isn’t being suicidal against preservation of the human race and against evolution itself? Couldn’t it therefore be said that true love is a mental disorder since it serves no biological purpose and can be self destructive?

Am I the only one who thinks that “love” has been greatly romanticised in the last two centuries and that we should take a step backwards and try to think rationally? In my opinion “love” can only come with time, or am I just mentally handicapped?

[Gaul]

my ADD says - you are only 16, that's why I'm 26 and never experienced that mushy, jolly old emotion. My ADD also says - I'm sorry I could not read any but the first sentence of your post, but - you're still 16 But find someone quick! For there is no love like teenage love - Once you hit 20/21 you pretty much give up

[Fenris]

To me the way that Romeo and Juliet act in the play of the same name is simply retarded. Isn’t being suicidal against preservation of the human race and against evolution itself?

What the heck has evolution and preservation of human race has to do here?

Am I the only one who thinks that “love” has been greatly romanticised in the last two centuries and that we should take a step backwards and try to think rationally?

I completly disagree. Once you fall in love with a girl, she is the most beautiful person there is, and you find her much more attractive than she really is. I can say I've been in love only once, and trust me, you could have given me the choice between her love and a harem consisting in the 50 most beautiful girls on Earth, I would have chosen her love.

In my opinion “love” can only come with time, or am I just mentally handicapped?

I don't believe in love in like: you see the girl and you fall in love. The first time you see a girl, you can find her hot/pretty/etc. or even pretty plain. But then you talk to her, you get to actually know her and attraction will give place to love. Or if she was just plain, neutrality will give place to love, and then the move love gets into action, the more the girl gets pretty.

And no, you are not mentally handicapped... you just haven't loved yet. Some people actually never love, in my opinion. I loved once and I am happy I did, and I sincerely hope it will happen again. And when I am talking about love, it's very different from just attraction, even if it's not only physical attraction.

Or I am just special? But seriously I've witnessed love of people around me, and you'll probably get around it one day or another, the last thing you want to do is force it, but you also must not neglect it.

[Armfelt]

What the heck has evolution and preservation of human race has to do here?

Well that is our only biological purpose.

I completly disagree. Once you fall in love with a girl, she is the most beautiful person there is, and you find her much more attractive than she really is. I can say I've been in love only once, and trust me, you could have given me the choice between her love and a harem consisting in the 50 most beautiful girls on Earth, I would have chosen her love.

Yes but I doubt I'll ever feel like that, and I doubt that many people feel exactly the way that you described, you can show deep affection for a person, a.k.a. love without being irrational. Her character might make her the most beautiful, but I think that most will still admit that there are physically more attractive women, but they are so in love that they don't care.

I don't believe in love in like: you see the girl and you fall in love. The first time you see a girl, you can find her hot/pretty/etc. or even pretty plain. But then you talk to her, you get to actually know her and attraction will give place to love. Or if she was just plain, neutrality will give place to love, and then the move love gets into action, the more the girl gets pretty.

I agree with this, though I don't think that her character makes her prettier, it just completes her.

[MaximiIian]

Love, IMHO, is simply a medium, a place between amicability and mating. It acts as an attractor, due to it being the chemical reaction of pheromones and hormones, which releases endorphins. The attraction leads to mating rituals (dating) and then the mating itself (sex).
What makes humans special, in this regard, is that the act of sex itself causes a release of endorphins. It is, however, not just humans which have this reaction. Additionally, other primates, cetaceans, certain rodents, and possibly even octopi, derive pleasure from sex; this seems to be a trait of creatures with highly developed brains. This almost makes "love" an obsolete emotion, as we will oftentimes choose mates based upon physical appearance, or "sexiness", rather than on chemical/emotional attraction. This is partially why "love" is "romanticized" in film and literature- it is an emotion which is becoming rarer in life.

If you find love, savor it. Keep it close, and do ever not let it go, lest it become a dead sense.

[Socratici viri]

Love, IMHO, is simply a medium, a place between amicability and mating. It acts as an attractor, due to it being the chemical reaction of pheromones and hormones, which releases endorphins. The attraction leads to mating rituals (dating) and then the mating itself (sex).
What makes humans special, in this regard, is that the act of sex itself causes a release of endorphins. It is, however, not just humans which have this reaction. Additionally, other primates, cetaceans, certain rodents, and possibly even octopi, derive pleasure from sex; this seems to be a trait of creatures with highly developed brains. This almost makes "love" an obsolete emotion, as we will oftentimes choose mates based upon physical appearance, or "sexiness", rather than on chemical/emotional attraction. This is partially why "love" is "romanticized" in film and literature- it is an emotion which is becoming rarer in life.


If you find love, savor it. Keep it close, and do ever not let it go, lest it become a dead sense.

This last sentence is an interesting break from the former reductionistic stance. I would add that if one really wants to savor and keep love then one should be especially cautious of the role that concepts in biology, anthropology, and chemistry play in one's experience of it. One might find it difficult to appreciate love as something to be savored if all that one thinks one is doing is "mating" and reacting to chemical impulses. I meaningfully love (as opposed to ineffably) someone, and my notion of love also has some explanatory import (if ever I needed it, which I haven't yet), but if we ever went through a "mating stage" I can assure you we're well past it. Then again, maybe farting contests, hospital trips, and grocery shopping are actually all "mating rituals!":hmmm:

[MaximiIian]

Well, almost anything males do is to either impress the opposite sex in order to aquire a mate, or to outdo & somehow intimidate rival males.
But my point was that, we have to be aware of our emotions and chemistry in order to properly and successfully manuever through a situation wherein one loves another human. Since it is a fleeting feeling, one must cherish and keep it as much as possible, but by no means should plow through irrationally. That was what I meant.

[Socratici viri]

I didn't think you were proposing any kind of irrationalism. I'm sorry if my post came of like that. Your last sentence clearly implied that one must be able to recognize love, and that once one recognizes it then one should embrace it.
That's cool.

I just disagree with your position that bio-chemistry supplies good concepts for understanding, and learning to recognize love. I also disagree with your position that the person you love is just the object of sexual and competative drives.

The "chemical route" turns feelings into sensations; and we thereby lose sight of the intentional nature of our experience of love. Cherishing a stimulation is not the same as cherishing love. This chemical reductionism you propose neglects one very important part of love, namely that it is always of someone.

And substituting a real person with a bio-anthropological abstraction won't get one very far in understanding what there is to love in people; people come in a few varieties, as do (proper and successful) loving relationships.

I think we just come from two perspectives- perhaps I might be the internalist, and you the externalist! Only I think the internalist position goes a longer way in "actual practice."

[Lusted]

Ah, 16, that is how old iwas when i first fell in love. It was not love at first sight with my first girlfriend, but in a few weeks i was definitely in love with her, and a few months later we were going out.

Am I the only one who thinks that “love” has been greatly romanticised in the last two centuries and that we should take a step backwards and try to think rationally?

Rationality and love do not go together. when you love someone they are the center of your world, and to you they are the most wonderful and beautiful person in the world.

Love is niether logical, nor rational. But if it comes your way do not ignore it, it can bring you the greatest happiness you have ever known. There is nothing like spending time with the person you love, even just relaxing watching a movie.

[Knacker Born Killer]

I'm in a sorta twisted situation in the moment down to love, so it's out of me good books. I'm not sure if I'm actually in love - I'm starting to doubt it, but I went through a long period of tripping over me shoelaces for this girl, and I'm still not entirely over it.

If I where a shallower... wiser man I'd have had my way with her a long time ago and by God it would've made my day because to me... she's just ideal looking. Unfortunately I got hung up on her for more than looks... which is taboo as a teenager, all me friends are happy go lucky and telling me to get over her... but her personality, which is incompatible with mine is just magnetic.

For the past 6 years she couldn't get enough of talking to me, always rambling on about something and being very affectionate. Started drinking a few months back... so I thought I'd start something . I always liked her now, but the drink started to fill my head with ideas... and I wasn't a confident man with women until then so I thought I'd finally make my move, especially when me best friend started saying... "Aye... she was always cheesing with you to a while degree back in the past 6 years of school".

Well, fast forward about 3 months since I started fawning over her... and what do you know? She hates me, mainly because I poked my nose into what she was doing even though it was none of me bussiness, and basically started calling her names... what she done... was pretty bad, but no moreso than a lot of girls and I started getting all self righteous.

Anytime I see her out now, it's a real effort not to say something nasty and show her up. I still really want to tap that keg so to speak, but I don't see how now... because I had 2 drunken arguements with her... showed her up... then she started basically kicking and pushing me... and telling me she hated me.

Well, it's more complicated than that like, but basically my point is... Love is bollocks if it's not returned. Can you still love someone and say the sorta things I said to her? I'm still hoping someday it'll happen because the omens looked so good until I fudged it all up. Love has stolen me fecking mojo.

[Lusted]

Realised i forgot to respond to a few points in the original post:

Even more confusing for me is the term “love at first sight”. And that feelings of love will never die.

I am also not sure about love at first sight, but after a recent experience, i think it may be true.

And if you are deeply in love with someone, and they love you back, you really can never imagine the love ending at some point, you think it will go on for ever.

[Ronin]

Realised i forgot to respond to a few points in the original post:


I am also not sure about love at first sight, but after a recent experience, i think it may be true.

And if you are deeply in love with someone, and they love you back, you really can never imagine the love ending at some point, you think it will go on for ever.

I agree love at first sight is possible yet most of the time unrealistic. It takes time to develop the complex feelings for someone that entail being in love. Infatuation is a whole different story.

[Fenris]

Love at first sight might just be that you feel attracted by the person as soon as you see her, however it could turn out that, when you get to know her a bit more, you don't love her. However, when it happens that you do love her (which will probably more often be the case) then you will say it was love at first sight, however I refuse to believe that it was LOVE you felt first, but more attraction, even if it's not just physical attraction.

[Ronin]

Love at first sight might just be that you feel attracted by the person as soon as you see her, however it could turn out that, when you get to know her a bit more, you don't love her. However, when it happens that you do love her (which will probably more often be the case) then you will say it was love at first sight, however I refuse to believe that it was LOVE you felt first, but more attraction, even if it's not just physical attraction.

I agree with that .

[turtle]

Love at first sight might just be that you feel attracted by the person as soon as you see her, however it could turn out that, when you get to know her a bit more, you don't love her. However, when it happens that you do love her (which will probably more often be the case) then you will say it was love at first sight, however I refuse to believe that it was LOVE you felt first, but more attraction, even if it's not just physical attraction.

Very true. I don't understand how one could actually believe in love at first sight, it just doesn't make any sense to me, given my idea of what true love is.

[Tom Paine]

Love at first sight might just be that you feel attracted by the person as soon as you see her, however it could turn out that, when you get to know her a bit more, you don't love her. However, when it happens that you do love her (which will probably more often be the case) then you will say it was love at first sight, however I refuse to believe that it was LOVE you felt first, but more attraction, even if it's not just physical attraction.

If its at first sight all you know about the person, be they male or female, is how they look; thus how can it be anything more than physical attraction, ie, lust? And what kind of relationship can one build on lust alone, I wonder?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

If its at first sight all you know about the person, be they male or female, is how they look; thus how can it be anything more than physical attraction, ie, lust? And what kind of relationship can one build on lust alone, I wonder?

A great relationship - when you find out you love the person inside, and that's when you start calling it "love at first sight". Until then, its just attraction.

[Tom Paine]

Precisely; what you have then is a love grown from a relationship formed from lust. If it was purely the bond of lust formed at first site it'd be a poor relationship.

[Ronin]

Precisely; what you have then is a love grown from a relationship formed from lust. If it was purely the bond of lust formed at first site it'd be a poor relationship.

Attraction is not lust. You can be attracted to a person and still not want to sleep with them.

[Tom Paine]

Hm, true. Fine, a purely physical attraction (albeit potentially not lust) is not love, and is all you can have on first sight.