Not really; I think there is lust at first site but not love.

I agree. Love takes time. Lust, Infatuation and anticipation at first sight...sure.


I have always believed that love should have the solid foundation of friendship first.

I wana agree wiv u there but d thing is that do people even believ in lov any more, we only wana b wiv some one nd also 2 get laid

Okay... so it's not at first sight. Right. But how many?

Exactly how many sights does a body require before he or she can call it "love"?

I think I have the pejorative, I have the right constitutionally guaranteed by the freedom of feelings, the freedom of belief, the freedom of free talk, to call a love a love upon any number of sights, where sights is X, and X is a non-zero positive integer.

---------

^^^ This is the commonly accepted opinion. Which is wrong.


There is nothing in the constitution that allows any citizen of the United States of America to have the RIGHT to be or to feel being in love. There is no such freedom, no such right, no such privilege.

Quit daydreaming. Get back to work.

Oh?

I love art, but never found myself wanting that painting for the rest of my life.

When you find that someone, and get that "feeling", and this feeling only grows stronger, deeper, and seemingly unbreakable over time..

..that was "love at first sight".

You don't always know it..

Sometimes you "grow" into it..
..others it grows unto you.

So, perfectly said?
Doubt it.

..says the woman who "loved me the minute she met me".

HA!

Hypocrite.

..you totally altered the scenario.
That's your justification for lust at first sight?

Please.

You alter the situation, of course the result changes.

Love didn't falter.
Blame the right culprit, not the invisible one.

Pffft. You mouthy lil devil. LOL.

Very true!!

It could be just lust,mere attraction (physical).



I could think about it only in case of roses!

Well thank you Tammy yes i feel not enough going into what a persons heart is and to much on looks in this day and age years ago more cared about the heart and if you see now some of them couples been married 50 years but today so many break up in few years its sad well have a awesome day

There's no such thing as love at first sight, that's really just lust.

What gets mistaken as love at first interaction is a chemical reaction we have to those our bodies react to.

People have to realize we have senses that are not obvious to us that react to everyone with which we have contact.

So no, love at first interaction is not happening but attraction is happening.

That is what causes that zapped feeling, those butterflies, that loss of breath, etc...

And we become so sensitized by the other person that if they touch us, it feels better than it would have from someone we do not have that reaction with.

For love, we really should let this attraction wear off and then see where we stand with them. If love exists it will show up after the super sonic thrill sensation is gone.

Or at least that has been my experience and observations of others.

Hi Dragoness,

Reading your response and I quote you, "What gets mistaken as love at first interaction is a chemical reaction we have to those our bodies react to. People have to realize we have senses that are not obvious to us that react to everyone with which we have contact". This statement triggered remembrance from science studies way back on the subject of "Pheromones".

I googled to find out what current research has been done on reasearch of human Pheromones in relation to human interaction via chemical reaction. For mammals not including humans are known to have pheromones for the purpose of sexual reproduction to "attract" each other. I did find many articles where people have done research on the subject but it has yet to be proven. Here is a few paragraphs of one person's findings:

"Are pheromones in humans a myth or are they real? At this point, it is difficult to say either a definite yes or a definite no. The field is obviously very confused, and for every paper one finds that seems to demonstrate the existence of human pheromones, one can find another equally compelling study refuting their existence. In this paper I have tried to consider a few compelling bits of evidence, but it should be noted that none of these results are yet widely accepted, and no pheromone has yet been isolated and conclusively linked to a physiological effect in humans. Further, much of the work in this field is of a qualitative nature, without adequate controls or firm statistical basis.

However, some of the results mentioned above are quite compelling. McClintock's study and Russell's extension seem to strongly indicate there is some odorant that affects women's menstrual cycles. The fact that men secrete musk-like substances that women are maximally sensitive to during ovulation coupled with the finding that there is a demonstrated increase in coitus during this period is also very intriguing. "Copulins" may or may not be human sexual releasers, and they seem to stimulate copulatory behavior in monkeys, although this result has not been confirmed.

To close, I would like to propose a new way of looking at pheromones, specifically in humans. With our highly developed intellect and rich compliment of emotions, ambitions, motivations and desires, it may not be profitable to look at human pheromones the same way we look at animal pheromones. Instead of looking for odorants that cause a definite physiological response, it may behoove us to look at how possible pheromones affect our attitudes. We are not machines that blindly fall into some stereotyped behaviour in response to an odor, but we may be machines that are nudged towards a type of behaviour by pheromones in concert with our higher intellect."

Interesting and how I see it as stated in my response earlier to this topic is our intellect prevails. For, I believe men and women without doubt as I experience in life, can have a platonic relationship and be friends or close friends with each other. There could be exceptions for some with higher sexual desire levels where they cannot control themselves and it overrides their intellect thus why we see such an agressive debate on the topic? Then, maybe for some it is impossible to have a true healthy platonic friendship with the opposite gender?

I agree with you there is no love at first sight and love exists through the building of a relationship for the exception of probability ruling which would be a very very low percentage comparably; based on world population - like winning a world lottery.

the eyes dont develop 'love'

they develop 'lust' or 'attraction'

social interaction develops 'love'

I don't believe in love at first sight, attraction, yep but not Love.

I do believe in Love though.