Finding "the one"

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yep, as many noted, there is a hefty amount of, well, sorry to say, BS in the idea of 'the one'. There are three main justifications for it, as far as I can think of on the spot.



A) For one, romantic love, as nearly all of us likely already know, is a recent phenomenon. Sure, it has been around for as far back as we know, but it was never something that was actually practised, notwithstanding rare exceptions. Arranged and forced marriages were the norm. Societies were built on this idea, grounded deeper than any fundamentalist claims of the family as being the fundament of our society (which is true, but a family is far, far less necessary than arranged marriages were in the old times) . Therefore, what we have is a recent phenomenon, which BTW, does not work well at all. The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60% (forgot by how much, I just knwo it is more). In contrast, it is a well-established sociological fact that arranged marriages are by far longer lasting, and even happier.

The sociologists insist the lack of expectations as well as the higher rigidity brings the couples together, encouraging the solution of differences and problems. This is the same reason why cohabitation has such an adverse effect (although small in comparison to an arranged marriage), because it does the converse, loosening the importance of the marriage bond, and suggesting that there is always an easy way out. Whatever the fundamentalists may be, they have the right ideas (i.e. the ideas which keep the marriage together, and running happier) about marriage, down to the inequality of husband and wife, as much as I loathe to admit.

Not to mention, the marriages that do end, usually do so before the first eight years - the first 4-7 years is the crucial point. This means that after eight years a family is on average, much safer. However, a couple may make it through the eight years with an ongoing conflict only to split up few years after that. Alternatively, an extramarital affair may occur - after all, close to 20% of all US divorces are due to infidelity, with nearly one out of four men cheating during their marriages.



B) Secondly, true love does start out as lust - something once again pointed out numerous times before me. I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.

Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.



C) The third and final point is that love, long- and short- term, can be 'artificially' induced relatively easily given the right conditions. I cannot find the exact study now, but I did read in one of my sociology/psychology books that researchers put together a large number of pairs, (one male, one female) and put them to work on%2

[Louis VI the Fat]

Alright, I'm growing tired of this. The role PM I sent you was edited. This is my full role PM. The bits I cut out from the other version have been bolded for your convenience:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Your role is:

The Italian

Fortunes made in no time are like shirts made in no time; it's ten to one if they hang long together.
~ Douglas William Jerrold

Back home, you lived the high life expected of the son of a wealthy Genoese merchant. You were educated in the finest schools and knew nothing but the best of everything. Art, literature, mathematics, etiquette, nothing has escaped your knowledge. Some of your competitors may think otherwise, but you know the end of Genoa’s mercantile power is looming. The Mediterranean is no longer the hub of trade, wealth now flows from the Americas, India, and beyond. Hoping to found a trade house of your own, you set off to explore the opportunities of the New World. But everywhere you went you found the British, French, or Spanish in unassailable control of the markets.

You were drowning your sorrows in one of the finer taverns in Charleston when the attack came. While all others around you were running for their lives, your financial mind came to an epiphany. The only part of the New World not controlled by Genoa’s rivals was right before your eyes: the Pirates. In the confusion of the sack, you slipped aboard the Presence, disguised as one of her crew. You were trying to determine how best to propose a mutually profitable trade agreement with the captain when those perfidious British removed the only man with the power to negotiate with you. Ever the innovator, you adjusted your goals accordingly. If you can gain control of the ship's stores and survive until the ship reaches Nassau, perhaps other pirate captains would be willing to entertain your proposals.

Your goal: To survive, and to be the Quartermaster at game’s end. You may tell the other sailors whatever you wish to accomplish this mission, for this is the only way you can personally obtain a victory.

Powers: As a highly educated man, you have skills that will serve you well during your time aboard:
- You may investigate one person a night. Results may vary.
- You may roleblock one person per night. In addition to this, you will also find out how much gold they currently have.

You may do one of these two activities on a single night, but neither of them will earn you any treasure. In addition, you cannot perform the same individual action more than three consecutive nights. In lieu of this, you may also take part in the usual townie group activities (kill with at least 3 others, protect with at least 2 others) and obtain treasure. However, as you are concerned with wealth on a massive scale, the pittance available on board this particular ship means very little to you. Striking a trade agreement with the pirates of Nassau will bring you more wealth than a simple pirate could ever dream of.

Base gold: 100

It does not need to be immediately, but I will require promotion to the QM spot eventually. I will do anything for this. Share my investigation results, kill Crazed Rabbit together with you as per our secret night action clause, share those pictures of my wife I told you about.
So Rabbit or my wife will be upset. Is that any of my concern? Sorry, but I have to look after myself. I know that this will remove my ability to kill at night, but I've got to try and achieve my objective.

Ah, bummer. I thought I remembered TinCow referring to his wife as 'it'. Alas, he doesn't. So much then for my hopes of compromising him with my long memory and pesky large inbox.

[Strike For The South]

A) For one, romantic love, as nearly all of us likely already know, is a recent phenomenon. Sure, it has been around for as far back as we know, but it was never something that was actually practised, notwithstanding rare exceptions. Arranged and forced marriages were the norm. Societies were built on this idea, grounded deeper than any fundamentalist claims of the family as being the fundament of our society (which is true, but a family is far, far less necessary than arranged marriages were in the old times) . Therefore, what we have is a recent phenomenon, which BTW, does not work well at all. The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60% (forgot by how much, I just knwo it is more). In contrast, it is a well-established sociological fact that arranged marriages are by far longer lasting, and even happier.

Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.

Romantic love is also a very far reaching thing. It is most deffintley not a recent invention.

The divorce rate is also nowhere near 60% and its dropping

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

The sociologists insist the lack of expectations as well as the higher rigidity brings the couples together, encouraging the solution of differences and problems. This is the same reason why cohabitation has such an adverse effect (although small in comparison to an arranged marriage), because it does the converse, loosening the importance of the marriage bond, and suggesting that there is always an easy way out. Whatever the fundamentalists may be, they have the right ideas (i.e. the ideas which keep the marriage together, and running happier) about marriage, down to the inequality of husband and wife, as much as I loathe to admit.

In arranged marrige its not about happiness, divorce never enters into there pshyche. Its that simple. Besides plenty of people run out of these things. Ancient Indian literature is littered with myths of princess runing away from there husband to be.

Not to mention, the marriages that do end, usually do so before the first eight years - the first 4-7 years is the crucial point. This means that after eight years a family is on average, much safer. However, a couple may make it through the eight years with an ongoing conflict only to split up few years after that. Alternatively, an extramarital affair may occur - after all, close to 20% of all US divorces are due to infidelity, with nearly one out of four men cheating during their marriages.

Do you have a source for that?

B) Secondly, true love does start out as lust - something once again pointed out numerous times before me. I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.

Mostly correct information. Do you have a source for your OCD=love claim?

Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.

Love is the result of the biological imperative to reproduce, you were right about the chemicals. Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.

The chemicals that get released are a necesary part of continuing the species.

Same reason why an orgasm is so pleasureable.

C) The third and final point is that love, long- and short- term, can be 'artificially' induced relatively easily given the right conditions. I cannot find the exact study now, but I did read in one of my sociology/psychology books that researchers put together a large number of pairs, (one male, one female) and put them to work on a physical assignment for two hours. Turns out the attachment created by merely working together caused most to feel attraction to the opposite of the pair, regardless of physical attractiveness differences (which were not too great). Quite a bit went on to date and a few even married. Alternatively, an even more effective strategy is working or even simply being together under frightening events (roller-coasters and horror flicks actually do count - hint hint for all the Orgahs dating the opposite sex).

This is true. Of course one can feel a deep attraction for many people

[Rhyfelwyr]

Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.

Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?

[Strike For The South]

Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?

No "race" is mostly a social construct.

Skin pigmentation has to do with Vitaman D and the amount of sun one gets. Of course this is dependent on how much melanin one has.

The amount this has to do with genetics is peanuts compared to some dieases/mental conditions.

I could have more in common with a Kenyan than you.

Skin color is useless when examining the genome

[The Wizard]

I think he meant for genetic diversity, considering someone far away is likelier to have a completely different gene pool than you do.

[TinCow]

Ah, bummer. I thought I remembered TinCow referring to his wife as 'it'. Alas, he doesn't. So much then for my hopes of compromising him with my long memory and pesky large inbox.

Interesting, I have a large inbox as well, and my version of that PM seems oddly different.... Must be a forum bug or something.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Trying to wriggle your way out of it, are we now?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did you just refer to my wife as "it"?

*English diplomacy on*

It must be wonderful to be able to share things like the Backroom with your spouse.

Now, back to the OP....

[pevergreen]

Would I be wrong in assuming you are a Protestant?

No, agnostic. Was a lutheran as a kid.

In a word, no, and there's no scriptural basis for it. That's some kind of Barbie Dream Pony logic mixed up with the Gospel.

On the Biblical front, the good book describes polygamy and monogamy without ever suggesting that one is better than the other. Even incest and rape are given air time, with no indication that these are bad things. Your friend's belief that Heavenly Father will pick out a perfect match for her has more to do with the movie Pretty Woman and the novels of Jane Austen than anything in scripture.

Taking it from a practical perspective, we're all capable of loving many, many people. Honestly, think about the odds if there were only one suitable match out there for you. What if she was born in Madagascar? What if she dies in a car crash before you meet her? What if she's put in an arranged marriage before you find her? In all these scenarios, you're borked.

No, the truth of the matter is that there are many, many people with whom we can be happy. It's a question of finding such a person and doing the work necessary to have a successful relationship.

This Cinderalla-inspired junk where the girl finds Mr. Perfect and is swept off her feet ot live happily ever after, well, it's a joke that has been selling books, movies, toys and TV shows since the dawn of time. No relationship to reality.

Which is pretty much what another christian friend of mine said. And of course, thats much more reassuring.

but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.

Thats the easiest to find quote about the subject from her, she said it a few days ago.

The scary thing for me though is, that while we were at school (graduated 14 or so months ago) she was a female version of AP. Then in December 07 she magically converted after years of anti-christian behaviour. And it completely changed her. Now, I don't think that it can't happen, i just, yet again, don't believe why she thinks she has to give up, as she says, 'smart things' to be happy. (science etc, she used to speak about stuff so complicated only 1-2 out of 20 could understand her) However, she still studies french and russian.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.

Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.

Romantic love is also a very far reaching thing. It is most deffintley not a recent invention.

You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.

The divorce rate is also nowhere near 60% and its dropping
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.

However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.

In arranged marrige its not about happiness, divorce never enters into there pshyche.

Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.

Its that simple.

Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Besides plenty of people run out of these things. Ancient Indian literature is littered with myths of princess runing away from there husband to be.

You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then?

Do you have a source for that?

For the infidelity, that statistic is everywhere, as the statistics correlate adequately. If you wish to check it, do so, and believe me, you will not find lower numbers, at least not likely. The 1/4 statistic for marital infidelity is very conservative - not only because it is low, as far as other studies go, but also because its method of data collection is rather unique - 1/4 of the divorces were found to have been caused by male infidelity. This leaves out the millions who manage keep the affairs secret, who have not yet spilled the secret, and those who decided to stay together even in the face of infidelity.

Mostly correct information. Do you have a source for your OCD=love claim?

The quick answer would be the February 2006 National Geographic article 'Love: The Chemical Reaction''. If NG does not satisfy you, which is understandable, since it is no scientific journal, much less a peer-review one, it is possible to examine the sources cited by the article. But this is chemistry observations, and it is difficult to go wrong here - or at least in comparison to a very impure and subtle science of sociology.

Love is the result of the biological imperative to reproduce, you were right about the chemicals. Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.

The chemicals that get released are a necesary part of continuing the species.

Same reason why an orgasm is so pleasureable.

Yes, of course, I agree with that. Stimuli must be present to ensure the biological act of reproduction and the care for the offspring.

This is true. Of course one can feel a deep attraction for many people

Right. My point was that this attraction is arbitrary - in the sense that it is not so much the physical/personality traits that affect us, but the circumstance as well.

Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?

Heh, you are a sharp one, eh? You are correct, but the mechanism which ensures genetic diversity is not played on the personal level, but on the societal one. Well, mostly.

We have the basic aversion to incest, which is the result of the Westermarck effect - which is the aversion to erotic attachments to the persons with which the subject has/had close contact with in the first few years of one's own life. Basically, it is the sexual desensitisation to the people in your family (including the extended one). This phenomenon is very much present in relatively small, close tribal-like structures, most notably the kibbutz. This instinct in effect shields the child from reproduction with the people he is close to - evolution presumed it would likely be one's own intimate genetic relatives.

But really, on a larger scale, it is played out through the practise of exogamy, where one has to seek a mate outside of the tribe - and this is a societal pressure, because the genetics do not discriminate on such a macro-level (we are programmed to seek certain traits, but those traits are universally shared - we show no particular affinity for people with apparent genetic differences). This societal pressure, however, does not normally cause particularly asymmetric bonds, in the genetic sense. That would be too troublesome. In fact, just the opposite happens - the basic human personality trait of being comfortable around like individuals ensures that we do not socialise too much with people unlike ourselves. To sum it up, we are fine-tuned to where the chances of marriages to relatives are highly unlikely, but once that danger passes, we show no preference for genetic strangers.

[Centurion1]

You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.

True love is an ideal popularized in western society with the advent of medieval king Arthurian myths and legends.

People do not have that one person. If i had enough commitment and an aversion to the concept of divorce there are probably a million people i could marry. Of those million i could probably be happy (very subjective) with a few thousand. True happiness is subjective and in marriage is often based of children, physical attributes, social standing, comfort of home life, and personality compatibility.

Love itself is an objective word. Maybe th eman who beheaded his wife loved her but is his love the same as the man who stays married to the woman on the feeding tube for 20 years. Love is different for everybody.

As to people preferring certain races. So what. I prefer certain races women over others so do 90% of men. hell i even prefer certain nationalities over others.

Not to say people cannot fall in love to say you cant is ridiculous some people meet someone and they do seem to click. But god didnt make them talk to that person some sort of trait (likely physical) attracted them in the first part.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.

Ah.... heard this one before. She's a romantic and, it appears, devoutely evangelical.

On a related note, I was once not dissimilar to AP (though a bit more positive generally) what happened was I met a girl similar to the one you are describing.

[naut]

Ah.... heard this one before. She's a romantic and, it appears, devoutely evangelical.

On a related note, I was once not dissimilar to AP (though a bit more positive generally) what happened was I met a girl similar to the one you are describing.

So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....

"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....

"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]

Anyway, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say I used to be like AP as well. Although, I'm far too much of a stereotypical Scotch Presbyterian hard-hearted ****** for any of this soppy rubbish!

There doesn't really seem to be much of an idea of romance in the Bible. From what I remember, Paul does leave his love life up to fate as this girl does, although he seemed to think of singleness as more of a blessing. Indeed, he says somewhere that people should only get married if they think they won't be able to avoid fornication otherwise. And then there's that bit where Jesus says some men become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. So all in all, I don't think her very modern, idealised views on love have any biblical roots.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....

"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]

No! For starters, I was never asexual (celibate, yes), and then it didn't end well, we were never in love (likely the problem); also, she was raised Christian.

Pever, how old is this girl?

[pevergreen]

Both girls are 18.

also, i guess it doesnt get around in the backroom, but its pevergreen.

[Beskar]

Both girls are 18.

also, i guess it doesnt get around in the backroom, but its pevergreen.

pevergreen is frightfully protective of his little p. Though, he doesn't like to boast about it in female company.

However, there might be a lesson that might be learnt around here. It is not the size of the p that matters, it is how you use it.

[pevergreen]

pevergreen is frightfully protective of his little p. Though, he doesn't like to boast about it in female company.

However, there might be a lesson that might be learnt around here. It is not the size of the p that matters, it is how you use it.

Nice joke.

Actually I did bring it up to that first girl, I'm going to call her J. She laughed.

Moving away from that...I dunno what we're talking about anymore.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Both girls are 18.

also, i guess it doesnt get around in the backroom, but its pevergreen.

18, ahhh. Too young for me.

[Scienter]

No, agnostic. Was a lutheran as a kid.


Thats the easiest to find quote about the subject from her, she said it a few days ago.

Originally Posted by That first friend I was talking about in the OP
but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.

I don't mean to be insensitive here, but if this is how she feels, do you think that she would be compatible with you if you're agnostic? She sounds very devoted to her religion, to the point where she wouldn't date outside of it. Also (keep in mind I have no idea how old you are), since she is very religious, my guess is that most er... physical aspects of a relationship would be out of the question. Do you know why she became a Christian? Did something happen to her? In my experience, those who convert to Christianity tend to be quite zealous. If you guys are both young (college?), maybe this is a phase for her and she'll be back to her "old self" if she doesn't find what she's looking for through religion.

[naut]

I think the important question is: Is she cute?

Do you know why she became a Christian? Did something happen to her? In my experience, those who convert to Christianity tend to be quite zealous. If you guys are both young (college?), maybe this is a phase for her and she'll be back to her "old self" if she doesn't find what she's looking for through religion.

As a former Christian, those types of Christians tended to freak me out. So enthusiastic. Yet, often with time people give up their faith, especially if it is gained during adolescence, (myself included), much like how many young ladies go through the vegetarian phase.

Honestly she sounds harmless, but a little naive. If anything I think she'll end up getting her heart-broken by someone down the line, but that's for her to experience. And in my honest opinion I don't think she's a fool for believing in "the one true love", some people need that sort of idealistic hope to help them get through life. It's a similar to the hope her faith provides her.

If you want to go after her, do so. If it doesn't go anywhere what has either of you lost?

[Beskar]

[rory_20_uk]

I hope he rents her by the hour rather than goes for a lifetime contract.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So we're all ignoring the fact that pever said he wasn't after her?

[Myrddraal]

B)For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine...

Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. ... Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.

Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't. All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds. Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid? That love is nothing but a mental disorder? That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion? Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time? Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.

To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.

[Beskar]

Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.

An explication of the divine mystery, you mean?

As to "love is a mental disorder". People in love exhibit a lot of the traits that Obbsessives do, including chemical balances. However, we have always known love and obsession are divided by the finest of lines. So none of this is actually news.

[Myrddraal]

Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.

Neat. I wonder how far you could stretch that analogy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As I understood it, serotonin levels were more related to the compulsions associated with OCD, rather than the obsessive thoughts themselves.