Wouldn't it be great if there were a scientific test to determine if you were "in love"?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
You know. The same way that there are scientific tests to determine if you are pregnant, or have a virus or things like that.

Though I suppose it's not so cut and dried. But there are scientific tests to determine if you are schitzophrenic or drunk or other fairly subjective things.

Imagine the possibilities. No more wondering. No more being fooled by sexual obsession or sidetracked by platonic admiration or mistaking that "Oh my god, was that an orgasm or did an earthquake just shake the bed?" great sex for something more.

Couples could take it together... sitting together on the edge of the toilet, biting nails as the litmus paper changes colour. Though I suppose it could have its downsides. Someone sneaking into someone's bedroom at night to obtain a result without them knowing...

How would such a test be accomplished? Would it be a hormonal test that measures the presence of Oxytocin or some other neurotransmitter? Or is love something more than a chemical reaction, that requires a battery of psychological tests?

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey, kate. Haven't seen you 'round here before. You come here often?

Yeah, it would def be a pee test. I'm sure they can at least measure lust levels because of hormones and uh - fluids.

Sarah McLusky (coco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah, but the whole point of the test would be telling the difference between simple lust and complex "in love". I'm sure a pee test for presences of hormones - or even a catheter test (mwah hah hah) could measure states of arousal. But a test for "in love" would probably have to be part chemical and part psychological.

You know, questions like... if there were a fire in your flat, what would you save first:
1) Your guitar
2) Your laptop
3) Handsome Soundartist

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

But imagine how horrible it would feel to feel in love with someone, take the test, and find out SORRY YOU'RE WRONG BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME! Then what great relationshipping you coulda done with that person, even if you weren't actually "in love", is like completely demolished!

Honestly though, I think "in love" is pretty relative; what feels like overwhelming-100%-for-certain "in love" once can become small potatoes later in life when an even greater stronger "in love" overtakes ya, and suddenly you're like "WOAH NOW THIS IS THE SHIT!, I was so naive/green/desperate back then".

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:19 (twenty-two years ago)

B-b-but... how will I have despicable, lazy, emotionally-manipulative sex then?!

Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Nickalicious, I see it happening more the other way around. I.E. you are in love with the other person, but they are not in love with you. See, it would be kinder and easier to FIND OUT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER that the other person is not in love with you and work on getting out of it and over it.

Sometimes I wonder that the only difference between what I am experiencing *now* and what I experienced in the past that was dismissed as "creepy, scary stalker obsession" is that in this case the obsession is (seems to be) mutual. What is the difference between love and obsession? Mutuality? I don't know.

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus, also, it would root out people who are actually in love, but are in denial about it. The typical English male reaction to emotions, you know?

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I think "obsession" is an incredibly loaded term, and I'm not sure who is best to judge what does and doesn't constitute obsession? Is it possible to vocal and honest about being in love with someone without appearing to be a scary stalking obsessive? Is "obsession" always a bad thing?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I think you can be more in love with someone some days more than others. And also, you can FALL in love with someone. So if your s.o. took the test and it showed he wasn't completely in love, you might throw out a perfectly good potential love-fest.

I think obsession is more like the honeymoon period of a relationship. You think you're in love but you're not REALLY completely in love yet.

Sarah McLusky (coco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It wouldn't be kinder & easier to find out. Not everyone falls in love instantly, so what if at the time the other person took the test they weren't 100% in love with you? You'd possibly throw in the towel needlessly when the next day they could be that 100% in love with you. As cheesy as it sounds I believe that you do know. You know deep down whether it is love or whether you are desperately searching for love & in your own way love that person. If you are treated in the way you should be treated & the feelings are mutual, they are all good signs of course, but I think if you are truly honest with yourself, you would know. (I mean this towards the royal 'you' not specifically you Kate.)

Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It would take all the fun out of it.

Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

If by fun, you mean hellish pain and disappointment...

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

What is the difference between love and obsession?

Obsession burns itself out, and sometime there's love left afterwards?

This'd mean that if you have two people who find love through obsession, you have (sometimes ^2) chance of it working. Sorry.

Anyway, the test would never work, because if you knew you were in love, would you trust some test? They haven't tested for you're feeling! This is something new!

I don't mean "you" there, Kate, I mean "one". Ah, what the hell, I mean "me".

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I wanna know what love is.
I want you to show me.

buttch (Oops), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Theoretically, it would take some heartache away, but i think a predictive test would be better, in that the test could tell you whether this person WILL be in love with you at some point.

Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Let the first precept, then, on which doth turn
Knowledge of others, be set down as this--
That we obtain, as far as possible,
That window which Momus did e’en require
To see the angles and recesses of man’s heart.

FrancisBacon the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean this thread pretty much in the abstract, so I'm not taking any of the "you" personally.

In my own experience, I know that right now it's too early to know anything for sure. But I'm just more interested in the rammifications of what could happen if such a test *were* commercially available.

Do you think there would be more couples in the world, due to the fact that people couldn't get out on lame cop-outs, or *less* couples in the world, due to people lying to themselves in order to get sex or whatever?

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

It's just that nobody can tell you if you're in love or not. Even if someone were shown a test that scientifically proves they're not in love, I don't think that person would believe it if they were convinced that they were in love. It's just one of things people have to find out for themselves, for better or for worse.

Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

But I wouldn't want this test myself. I am in love with my b/f & he is in love with me. If we're wrong, who cares. What we have is amazing & I wouldn't want a test to label what we had as it could never do it justice. In past relationships, I have truly known that they are not 'the one' otherwise they wouldn't have made me so unhappy all of the time. You might even stay with a person for ages, but you still know what's what.

Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I am happy for kate (but sad for me).

hstencil, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Weeeell... the 'obsessive' is someone who shouts their love of someone from the rooftops, but that someone couldn't care less, or is famous and would never know about those feelings unless 'obsession' forced a transformation into a stalker lunatic (answer me...ANSWER ME!-type thing).

When it's love, the person is there to answer you and is glad you're saying how great they are, and then you get to hear most of the same stuff back. Then, after so much goo that you both want to HURL, things stabilise. Meaning, things will mellow out to the point where you're able to start seeing other people your friends;-).

suzy (suzy), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes I think the difference between love and obsession is a retrospective thing... you feel the same Oxytocin rush when you meet anyone you're attracted to. If it is reciprocated, you call that rush "love at first sight" or something, but if it's not, you dismiss it as obsession.

At what point does it crystalise into *knowing* for certain?

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus, the difference between that sexual rush thing and actually "being in love" is another thing to address. I have some trouble telling the difference. It should be easy. People you can actually stand to be around, and have interesting times with even when you're not in bed, that should be "in love". But it's not. There's that Chemical X quality.

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:52 (twenty-two years ago)

If I felt as though I were in love with someone, and they felt as though they were in love with me, and we took a test, and it said "you are not in love with each other", I imagine it might actually solidify our wanting-to-be-together; that whole Romeo/Juliet Buttercup/Wesley stuff-wanting-us-to-stay-apart-will-only-strengthen-our-bond kinda thing. Prob'ly.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think that there is a specific point for everyone. For me, love was discussed after a week. Having said that, as wonderful as it feels, you kind of dismiss it cos 'surely it can't be love after 1 week' can it? I think it would depend on how close you were to that person & how much time you wanted to spend with that person, whether you could be without that person etc etc. Of course this is all reciprocated by the other person completely. Altho I had told my b/f that I loved him & vice versa, he said that the enormity of it all didn't hit him until I said that I wanted to have his children. I'd certainly never met anyone unitl that point that I'd trust with such an important thing.

Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 24 April 2003 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

as one fall in love vis body flods ver with dopamine, norepinephrine and esp phenylethylamine. (this last chemical is also to b found in chocolate, maybe explaining why it's linked to valentine's day)
so i think checking for phenylethylamine would be part of the test.

such a test might be useful but i think love is the maintenance of a strong reciprocity between 2 person, who take care of eachother's pleasures and desires so in this sense this test would be more at it's place as being another tool available for the games lovers play.

Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Any scientific* test designed to determine a psychological or emotional condition is going to be subject to the subject's ability to accept, qualify or outright reject its findings. I've seen plenty of folks tested scientifically for various mental illnesses and conditions (depression, etc) who turn around and patently declare the tests inaccurate because they don't want to accept the results. And sometimes they get through the rest of life okay without needing any kind of treatment, which in some ways makes their declaration correct.

I think that comparison of love and mental illness is not really that far off, but that's another discussion altogether, and I'm totally biased about it anyway.

Even non-scientific tests are subject to interpretation by the testee/tester. I can't tell you the number of times I've read the horrorscopes for both Leo and Pisces and then created a bunch of reasons for why myself and my lover are destined to stay together using a few sentences as a romantic springboard for jumping into a brainstorm. And if I can't come up with a good explanation for the predictions to coexist, I discount the entire study of Astrology for the day and feel fine and just as in love.

Besides, there already is a super test for this. It looks like a large eightball, and you ask it "Are we in love?" and turn it over. If it says "No," you turn it over again. And you keep doing that until it says "Decidedly So." Then, if you had to turn it over more than once, you make up a reason why and feel fine about it.

By the way, any reference to "you" in this post means me and the other hopeless romantics.


* where scientific is defined as gathering enough data to show some kind of pattern, as with pretty much all psychological tests

martin mushrush (mushrush), Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I tell my guy I'm in love with him but I don't think it's necessarily true. I think that being "in love" is a conscious choice and therefore if you decide that you are, then you are.

For a long time I no believe in love (other than the normal garden variety). One day I read a thing that says once you have a child and you would sacrifice your life for your child, that is love.

Back then I could not imagine caring about any one person enough to sacrifice my life (me not have child), although could imagine loving humanity enough to sacrifice my life for many.

Now with this guy, he's the first person I ever meet for whom I would die.

Maybe this is still about humanity though coz mostly what makes me feel this way is that he is doing so much good, in a truly altruistic way, for others.

toraneko (toraneko), Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

*NB Im not saying I want to die. I'm saying I'd risk my life protecting him.

Aaargghh. Doesn't matter what I say now. All sounds silly. neway...

toraneko (toraneko), Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I am realizing, after reading this thread, that I haven't really been in love in quite some time. It's kinda distressing, but in a sense the thread became the test, so that's kinda neat.

hstencil, Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

*NB Im not saying I want to die. I'm saying I'd risk my life protecting him

toraneko, i understood what you meant. maybe you'll find thislittle story interesting.

Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't quizzes in women's magazines accomplish this?

That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Quizzes in womens magazines are about as far from the truth as horrorscopes. They tell people what they want to hear, not any kind of objective truth. Do you think women would really buy a magazine whose quizzes told them things they didn't want to hear about their love not being true?

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

OMG my brain is all twisted now. That was so real.

toraneko (toraneko), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I could show you, but what if you don't like the answer?

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

It's been said a few times upthread, but bears repeating: the idea that getting a yes/no answer would mean that it will stay yes/no => Danger, Will Robinson!

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I love my wife madly. I think if she wasn't around, I would crumble. She likes ice cream so that makes her ten times more loveable.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess what I want to know is not so much "Am I in love?" which is a moot non-question being that I've abandonned the notion of "in love" a long time ago. But rather "We're having a pretty pleasant experience... is it likely to stay pleasant, and ifso for how long?"

Which would need more like a bloody tarot card reading to say...

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I think that there are multiple levels of love. You can sincerely be in love with someone and then fall harder for them and even harder. So what level of love is "love?" Or is it all just one love that is maturing? Am I confusing myself? The answer is YES.

You can know you are in love one day. THen a year or so later think,"I thought I was in love then, but now I'm REALLY in love." Or you could be in a more mature relationship and REALLY love the person more than the last person you loved. And so on. And now I shut up.

Sarah McLusky (coco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

but what if it said "yes, you're likely to have a nice time for another three and a half months, after which it will turn to shit."

Would you stay in it, knowing that you only had that limited time? Would you detach yourself from it and just ride it out? Would you end it then to save yourself the heartache of it finally ending? Would you punch the test reader?

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I think relationships are more than likely gonna end before you die. So you might as well ride them out if they're going well.

Sarah McLUsky (coco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

but what if it said "yes, you're likely to have a nice time for another three and a half months, after which it will turn to shit."

This is the story of every relationship I've ever been in, so yes, I probably would stay in it.

However, I just did a tarot reading and it is possibly the *nicest* reading I've ever had. Everything is happiness and prosperity and peace and abundance and good things. And the end result is:

The ninth and final card, placed in the center bottom of the triangle, represents the final outcome unless you change course. Knight of Wands: The essence of fire, such a great conflagration. One filled with vitality and passion for life. A sexy and exciting person, daring in their actions, cocky in their attitude, and utterly without fear. Absolute sincerity, coupled with violent emotions that swing wildly from one extreme to another. Boundless creativity and lust for a change of both pace and place. The rapid approach, or more likely departure, of something that sets your world ablaze. Often suggests travel or escape.

kate, Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

didn't anyone watch "Psychic Secrets Revealed" last night. They don't work. I would end it asap. I'm an emotional guy and I hated breaking up with people. Thats why I never broke up with anyone ever, they all did it to me. And it wasn't fun knowing it was ending...especially when they are banging someone else the whole time.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Whilse we are discussing love, on the toilet wall at uni someone has written:

"Is it possible to love two people at the same time and how do I keep them in the dark?"

There are two responses:

"I love my mum, dad, brother and two best friends. That's five people so I reckon two is possible."

and

"Handcuff them both to your bed and turn off the light."

Ha ha, I like the second answer!

toraneko (toraneko), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

You've described 85% of my relationships right there, Chris. I walked in on one guy and my best friend and ran out - he ran after me - still hard and tried to tell me it wasn't what I thought.

Gee, 'cos I thought you were discussing quantum physics - OBVIOUSLY I was mistaken.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

The ninth and final card, placed in the center bottom of the triangle, represents the final outcome unless you change course. Knight of Wands: The essence of fire, such a great conflagration. One filled with vitality and passion for life. A sexy and exciting person, daring in their actions, cocky in their attitude, and utterly without fear. Absolute sincerity, coupled with violent emotions that swing wildly from one extreme to another. Boundless creativity and lust for a change of both pace and place. The rapid approach, or more likely departure, of something that sets your world ablaze. Often suggests travel or escape.

aww, that's a nice thing for the mystical powers of the universe to say about methe HSA.

hstencil, Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

My gf in college pulled pretty much the same crap. And she taunted me with it after we broke up. i'd see her at partys and she would start hitting on guys right in front of my face. Eventually it ended with me having a breakdown, ending up a depressive, flunking all my classes and getting thrown out.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

want me to find her and kick her ass, Chris?

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

last year was the first time I ever "broke up"* with somebody.

*I'm putting it in quotes because we broke up because I had to move to NYC, so there's the possibility that if I was still in Chicago, we'd still be together.

hstencil, Thursday, 24 April 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Its amazing that I still hold a grudge on someone I dated 10 years ago. I'm getting mad thinking about it. The worse thing is I felt bad for her when we first broke up. She had no friends really because we spent so much time together and I would see her all alone and shit and I eventually went to talk to her. We got back together for two weeks, so she could meet some new people and then she dumped me again. Yeah, find her and kick her ass Luna. godamn hippy.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm on it.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Last I heard she was in California. She's probably a porno star now.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I think that there are different levels of being in love--it's not like a pregnancy test where you're either pregnant or you're not. I mean, in some respects you're either in love, or you're not--but it's kind of like having a fever. You can have a low grade fever and still have a fever--or you could be burning up with a 106 F fever. I think in my life I've said "I love you" genuinely to three people. Each time, in succession, I've climbed the thermometer of love. It's gettin' hot in herre!

Mandee, Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Coincidentally, I'M in California. This could work.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Wouldn't it be great if there were a scientific test to determine if you were "in love"?

Marriages will be torn to shreds...clandestine affairs will be exposed...secrets of all kinds will be revealed...ALL ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

Coming this fall on FOX (of course).

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

What is love?

(don't hurt me!) (nabisco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Seriously, though, I think conceiving of love as an identifiable and clearly-defined state is the worst thing ever to happen to love.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Quizzes in womens magazines are about as far from the truth as horrorscopes. They tell people what they want to hear, not any kind of objective truth. Do you think women would really buy a magazine whose quizzes told them things they didn't want to hear about their love not being true?

I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should've included a winking face or closing tags to make this clear.

That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I also fell more in love the other night while playing scrabble with my wife. We were drinking corona's and playing and listening to a comp with Durutti Columns "otis" on it. And she kept singing "Doo Doo daa daa dee" during the Tracy Chapman sample. I asked her what she was doing and she told me that those were the lyrics. I laughed and just told her how cute she was. Its the little things like that, that make me love her so much.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

NOTMAU

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:17 (twenty-two years ago)

= Nabisco On The Mark As Usual

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

and then I passed out.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

im a charmer I tell ya.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh we can tell

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

just doin my thing dawg.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You are a suave motherfucker, Chris

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i try. i've got no game whatsoever in real life. im my fantasy pimp life i got shaq style game though.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Quit hijacking my thread!

I mean, I'm doing my very best *not* to hijack my own thread with discriptions of the endless source of wonder and fascination that is HSA.

(It's funny, since HSA found out about ILX, I was worried that he would be upset by me talking about him. "No," he says "So long as you go on at great length about my sexual prowess." I immediately started blushing furiously remembering that my first thread about him was about how he gave me such a good seeing-to that I couldn't walk for days! So I no longer worry about all my "HSA is a beardy sex-beast!!! K-rowr!" posts.)

kate (suzy), Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I'd risk my life protecting my SO, not because I'm in love (which I'm pretty sure I'm not), but because I'm just like that.

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 24 April 2003 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Certainly there are a bunch of physiological response factors you could test (inicrease in heartbeat, body temperature - galvanic skin response, etc). As far as assaying for levels of various neurotransmitters, I would say that it would be impossible to pull off in any accurate manner, nor would it be particularly useful information. Unless you drilled a probe into yr head.


geeta (geeta), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Whenever I see HSA, I instantly feel happier and have a greater sense of well being, and the little things that irritate me seem not so bad. This works even when he just telephones me. Hrmmmmm...

kate (suzy), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha ha Suzy!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

(Oh duh it's kate from suzy's pyuter, d'oh!)

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

But how would we determine certain neurotransmitter activities and chemical increases and other such physical measurements as being suggestive of love rather than simply sexual desire? < /thinking out loud>

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd like to pretend I'm in love with someone today - any volunteers?

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

(nb: just for today)

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Speaking of which, whoops, I gotta run. HSA and I are going to watch the Georgian Crime special on C4 tonight!

kate (suzy), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

you can love me all you want.

Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Nobody pretends to be in love with the nickalicious. It's all or nuthin with me baby. < /chris v>

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, find her and kick her ass Luna. godamn hippy.
Chris, It's not very nice of you to insult Luna like that after she offered to do you a favor! :)

Sarah McLUsky (coco), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Well that was a given, Chris

and nick - I dreamt of you! of course it's love! But you have your ladyfriend - you don't need me

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

In order to test for being "in love" you first need to define what that means first. I've personally allways defined it more or less in the same way that Toraneko did. That you value this other person's life more than you value your own. So to test for love, I guess we'll have to hold a gun to HSA'a head and see if you're willing to die trying to save him. And while we're at it, can we design a "scientific test" for talent and taste and all the rest? And make life completely uninteresting? Please?

Disclaimer: I am not in any way shape or form qualified to dispence advice on love. I guarantee that I have been accused of being psycho and obsessive ten times for each time that any of you have.

mouse, Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I know I probably mention it a lot, because it's kind of empowering (if you'll pardon the term) for me, but I am diagnosed with a few mental illnesses, all of which at least partly have something to do with brain chemistry, neurotransmitters and all that. I am Bipolar (mixed episodes) and also have Generalized Anxiety Disorder with some of the trappings of Depression. I do take medication, but I am still in the process of switching meds and finding the best combination for me.

My girlfriend, who I don't get to see in person all that often (and won't for about 5 more months when I can move and be with her), visited me for a long weekend a few days ago, and while she was around I felt more calm and relaxed than I am usually able to feel. I can often fall asleep easily next to her (not just out of post-coital physical exhaustion), whereas alone or near someone I don't know or trust (like on an airplane), sleep for me can be anywhere from difficult to impossible.

I have been with plenty of SOs in the past who did not have the same calming effect on me. While I don't mind it being explained by neurotransmitters and chemical changes in the brain, I also don't particularly care about that explanation because I agree with geeta that it's not that useful.

The test for whether or not I am in love is the observation of the extent to which she makes me feel better when I feel worthless, guilty, anxious or otherwise unable to do the things I know I can do when I'm not locked up in some kind of slow panic attack. I'm not talking about scared cause there's a deadline and my boss is mean. I'm talking about petrified because I have to get to the airport during rush hour or because I think I haven't accomplished anything useful on a Saturday afternoon.

I'm older now than other times I've been through the treatment ringer or in the middle of serious episodes of anxiety or depression, and I know more about what's going on and what to pay attention to internally, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman I'm with now makes it a lot easier just by existing.

So yeah. I said the pretty much the same thing as kate re: SO making me feel better just now, but with more words and some clinical stuff.

martin mushrush (mushrush), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Offer rescinded - I don't want to be in love anymore. To time consuming. I'll settle for the crush.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd go for the calming effect thing, but also sometimes that rush of excitement and energy that opens things wide up.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd go for the calming effect thing, but also sometimes that rush of excitement and energy that opens things wide up.

They're not mutually exclusive, though. Anxiety isn't excitement.

martin mushrush (mushrush), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Scientific mathematical model to determine people *not* in love.

It's actually used to predict divorces by analyzing spousal arguments.

So, do a simulation and multiply it by -1 to see if you're in love. ;-)

cprek (cprek), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Math!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

See that's the thing (sorry to everyone who hates sentences that begin that way): with my current SO, I often feel a certain amount of calm; I feel comfortable with her; but there is a certain excitement that seems to me to be lacking (even though I lust after her and she appears to lust after me).

*

Dying for one's beloved: an irresistible combination of eros and thanatos in one package.

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes! Finally! Discovering whether you are in love or not using MATHS!!! (HSA's grandfather may have written poetry, but my granny wrote MATHS TEXTBOOKS which means I have WAY more faith in maths than in poetry for determining affection.)

kate, Friday, 25 April 2003 07:06 (twenty-two years ago)

but if you gte yr sums wrong. then what?

I'm a sucker for pain.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 25 April 2003 07:18 (twenty-two years ago)

pain makes you beautiful

luna (luna.c), Friday, 25 April 2003 07:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't read the rest of this thread. its too painful.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 25 April 2003 07:23 (twenty-two years ago)

That is what CALCULATORS are for.

If a guy starts talking about marriage All. The. Time. and joking around about your "wifely duties" and things, does that mean he's serious about you? I'm getting slightly worried. Not cause I haven't thought about HSA as a potential mate, but because the only person I've ever had any kind of experience like this with... well, he started asking me to marry him within about a month, and turned out to be a raving lunatic abusive control freak. So I don't want to say "you shouldn't joke about that" because if he is just joking, fair enough, but what if he's serious?

kate, Friday, 25 April 2003 07:30 (twenty-two years ago)

HSA is not an abusive control freak. He doesn't have little dramas like certain past partners (in fact I think little dramas are a bad sign of instability generally). I think HSA is tops, actually, and all his talk is probably a good thing, becaus *maybe* you're hearing these things from an actual sane person for the first time. It's not like you can't ask him and explain the backstory, right?

suzy (suzy), Friday, 25 April 2003 08:35 (twenty-two years ago)

But how do I *know* that he's not a raving lunatic? I mean, Psycho Ex didn't start showing his psycho colours for quite some time. People can be and often are on their best behaviour for the first few months of a relationship. I mean, *I'm* still on my best behaviour. I only had a minor wound-up episode last night when I went over his house and immediately started washing all of his dishes compulsively because I was wound up about something else and couldn't stand the sight of dirt. He may not be so keen when he realises this is a regular occurance.

kate, Friday, 25 April 2003 08:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Your best behaviour is the real you, though. Stuff you've done in the past, psycho boyfriends you've had once upon a time, is simply that - the past. Put it behind you like you know you should. And don't let little things wind you up and turn into bigger things.

We could commiserate. I'd have a Batsignal (shaped like frying pan) to let him know that a compulsive cleaning hurricane is headed his way following fit of pique over someone else's carelessness (BTW am stressed which makes me INCREDIBLY scatty. Then add PMT, yowzah!).

suzy (suzy), Friday, 25 April 2003 09:11 (twenty-two years ago)

eleven months pass...
http://www.v-entertainment.com/ldpc.htm

That was a link to a real, scientific software which detects true love, or true lies !!

Check it out !

lovergirl, Thursday, 22 April 2004 07:34 (twenty-one years ago)

nine months pass...
REVIVE!

I am scienifically in love with all of you.

Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Monday, 14 February 2005 21:11 (twenty years ago)

AW! It's mutual, dude.

roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Monday, 14 February 2005 22:53 (twenty years ago)

If there were such a test I would score 100% right now.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 14 February 2005 22:57 (twenty years ago)

If you don't cry,
It isn't love
If you don't cry,
You just don't feel it deep enough

caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 14 February 2005 23:03 (twenty years ago)

Wow, what a horrible thread to get revived. Wish I had taken that test after all. It would have saved a lot of wasted time.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Tuesday, 15 February 2005 11:09 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.