Love at First Sight: Myth or Magic?

The other thing that bothers me about it is the idea that love - and therefore a relationship - is some weird instantaneous chemical reaction that happens instantly and magically and does not require any work or dedication or compromise (or any of the other things that actually make a "good" relationship work in the long term).

I've never had a love at first sight scenario work out. The only two, maybe three long-term relationships that I've had were *not* LAFS scenarios, they were things that kind of snuck up on me, that grew. In fact, I've had almost nothing but horrendously *bad* experiences with LAFS. (Except the Great Lost Love Of My Life, but that's another story.)

Anything that can happen instantly can fall apart instantly, too.

So true

and to answer the question, yes it is magic. I mean how did Paul Daniels manage to land Debbie Magee?

Sometimes that's beauty or looks, sometimes that's attributes that people have chosen to express themselves (such as dress), sometimes it's on other superficial yet non-appearance based criteria such as taste in music.

"We have the same taste in music, therefore we will be best friends" can sometimes be as shallow and superficial as "you are beautiful, therefore I will love you" and sometimes it is a prelude to discovering other things in common.

Relationships based on superficial things will be superficial relationships so long as they continue on that level. Duh.

Sometimes "we have the same taste in music, as shown by the way that we dress" can lead to discovering that you have similar aesthetic senses, and are also intellectually and philosophically/ethically and emotionally compatibile. Which would lead to a better friendship, a deeper relationship, etc. But that sort of compatibility takes time to discover and explore. (And that's not even getting into issues of intimacy and trust, which take time and mutual work to establish.)

Appearance is important, it's something that most people choose on one level or another, so it is a form of self expression. But it's only a guaranteed expression of one layer.

Before THEY came down. Where was I?

I agree that the term "love" is assigned with hindsight, but it's not coincidence that it happens.

You can deny that fairies exist, sure. But you can't deny that someone was leaving 10p pieces under my pillow when my teeth fell out.

(Damn inflation.)

in other words, thinking you can tell something about a person from the way they look. sometimes you can but its FAR from being reliable, not to mention pretty dodgy.

You can't tell *everything* - no. But it's idealistic claptrap to pretend that people do not present themselves in certain ways (either consciously or subconsciously) and that people do not read things about them in that way.

So, the problem being, with judging by appearances, is that sometimes appearances are a deliberate lie.

But you can have the quickening of the pulse, the feeling dizzy, the daydreams...

Okay, that's the cartoon version of 'love' but it's what many people mean when they say that word.

in other words, thinking you can tell something about a person from the way they look. sometimes you can but its FAR from being reliable, not to mention pretty dodgy.
-- The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylure...), October 9th, 2003.

You can tell how they look! I always used to think that being attracted to someone (or vice-versa) based on looks was somehow invalid. Now I'm not so sure.

-- kate (masonicboo...), October 9th, 2003.

Karen O to thread!

Seriously, there's nothing special about her physically, but the way she presents herself, how she dresses and acts _makes_ her attractive to some people.

1) you can't love someone you don't know.

No, you can't. That's not what the actual experience of LAFS is. There is a commonly experienced phenomenon, and the name for it is "Love At First Sight". Fools Gold isn't really gold, it's iron pyrite. But that doesn't stop people from calling it Fools Gold.

Most people have, at one time or another, experienced an instant or highly quick chemistry with someone.

You can say, "oh, that's not love, that's lust". That doesn't change the fact that the experience happens. You can say "Religion is nothing but supersticion and there is no god, and people are just wasting their lives with something meaningless" but that doesn't change the fact that some people do have very significant and meaningful (to them) religious experiences which affect their lives dramatically. Anyway, that's all about labelling anyway.

in other words, thinking you can tell something about a person from the way they look. sometimes you can but its FAR from being reliable, not to mention pretty dodgy.

You can extrapolate from people's appearance that you might have interests in common, and project an attraction based on that. Sometimes this is reliable, sometimes it's not. Because attraction and good relationships require more than just having interests in common.

when people use the term, they usually mean something big and magical and mystical, so i think my skepticism is pretty warranted.

This I agree with. And this is why I think it's damaging. As I've said again and again on this thread, the idea of LAFS is misleading, because it makes people think that *everything* about a relationship should be as instantaneous and effortless as the initial attraction. And it's just NOT.

But that doesn't stop LAFS from existing or having power within people's lives, any more than saying "Religion is terrible, it has inspired more wars than any other cause" will part someone who has had a religious experience from their faith.

The phenomenon of LAFS is probably mis-named, because it is not the first sight that creates the love, when and if it works. (Though in my case, it hasn't worked.) But that doesn't stop it from exerting a powerful influence over people. It probably is the mis-naming that mis-leads people, and why I perceive it as harmful.

I have never heard Love at First Sight used in this way.

Just... you know, chemistry. You just look at someone and you KNOW that this could happen.

I fall in love at first sight every friday/saturday night at around 1am-2am.

I knew I hated Julian Casablancas before I ever heard a note of his music. And I was right!

But now I hate him so much I want to sleep with him... oh wait... this is too confusing.

I dunno who's soppier, people who believe in LAFS, or those who don't. The latter have such an exulted idea of love as transcending such fripperies as looks and taste in music, clothes, etc, that I think they might be the soppier after all. So I don't think they're necessarily the cynical ones.

So can things that take a while. It's a bit of an empty statement...

The problem with everyone here commenting on how "quick/instant relationships never last" is that, um, pretty much NONE OF US have had a relationship that has lasted being as pretty much none of us have been married for 20 years or whatever. So ALL of our relationships have not lasted. It's like a catch 22, you can take this logic of "none of my (fill in the blank type) relationships ever lasted" and that can apply to any situation ever unless you're actually in the relationship, then you're all positive about shit.

Most of my relationships* have been long dragged out courtships of me being like eh alright I'll tell you I love you, will you buy me a gift, and those never lasted either.

* "Relationships" meaning in this context longer than a month and not, for example, the guy I ran into this morning who I forgot I even KNEW much less dated.

So maybe I'm not the best judge of what is "successful" or not.

I mean, Orbit pointed out that she'd been in two decade-spanning relationships which were both LAFS. *That's* the POV that I'd like to see discussed.

You can't say that a relationship wasn't successful because it didn't end - because I've seen lots of successful relationships that did end eventually for one reason or another that were pretty happy while they lasted, and I've seen long-term unending relationships that are shit for one or both parthers.

How do you define a successful relationship? How long do you have to be in it before you can comment on it as being successful?

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0164052/7

(Slinks from bedroom to color-coded laptop)

So I guess what I'm asking is how is everyone here is defining successful because there's been a bit of talk about it but then when I throw out a definition that seems to be what's being talked about, ie lasting, that's wrong! What is successful?

I don't know how I define a successful relationship, really, because although I've been using length, it's obviously not a good measure. I don't think "happiness" is a good measure becuase it's so unquantifiable and differs from person to person - even within the relationship! One person may think they are in a happy relationship when the other is miserable!

Orbit isn't here to defend herself (even though I'm not necessarily attacking her) - but her only descriptions I've read on ILE seem to be pretty bitter. Maybe that's because you only remember the bad times when a relationships has gone wrong, I don't know. But so far she's the only person who has stood up to defend "LAFS" who has had a significantly long relationship out of the experience.

Most of my relationships have lasted at least a year. I'm weird like that. My last one lasted 3 years. This one is going on 5 years. I'd say this one is a success. The last one seemed to be, but at the time we (my ex and I) were both obsessed with our futures and whether or not we'd end up married and with kids. Since we were using that as a basis of whether or not we were a "success," we weren't successful. Ok, I've confused myself.

ha ha

1. Mutuality - do you enjoy the same things - entertainment, food, friends, etc., have similar world views - think the same thing ( a good example is you and your brother do not have similar world views and this is very disruptive of your relationship with one another.)

2 Equality. This is very important. Do you mutually respect one another as people in the world. Do you both contribute to the economic responsibilities of your partnership as equally as possible? Do you discuss it openly? One partner contributing while the the coasts will produce resentments. You are adult partners not dependent children. The contribution does not have to be money - if one of you is looking after children or doing the housework by mutual consent that is fine but you need to discuss it and agree and make sure you both mutually respect the decision that has been made.
Disagreements about money (or contributions) are the number one issue upon which relationships flounder.

3. Fruitfulness - this does not have to be children. It is more along the lines, do you together make more of your lives than apart. Is there in your union an emotional spiritual dimension that nutures you both, in which you feel secure and continue to grow. At a very ordinary level do you make one another happy?

4. Commitment. I certainly think that this should be talked about before you embark on living together but it is only me. I think women tend to be much more vulnerable emotionally in relationships than most men. You don't need me to tell you how painful break ups are.

At this point, it kind of breaks down, because she starts rambling on about sleeping together, and well, in this century (i.e. not the Victorian Age when she grew up) sleeping together and committment are not mutually inclusive. Plus, well, people have this big, scary idea of COMMITTMENT being, well, big and scary. They will act, for all intensive purposes as if they are in a committed relationship, but bring up the C word and they freak out. So who knows. Does COMMITTMENT mean you agree to spend the rest of your lives together for ever and ever amen? In which case, I don't agree that that has to be present to make it a "good" relationship. You can have a good short-term relationship, so long as everyone's expectations are met.

God, I need some coffee, I'm off to Starbucks.

See, that's where the happiness thing breaks down.

Also, the idea that different people look for different things from relationships at different times. I think when I was younger, I really *expected* a kind of love at first sight, sweep you off your feet, instantaneous relationship. Since they didn't work, maybe that's why I've abandonned my idea of LAFS and why I think the idea is so dangerous.

Even if it may work for other people.

Like I said earlier, the most unsuccessful-in-any-definition-besides-longevity relationships I've ever been in WERE ones I had to work at, that were not instantaneous things, that I kind of...learned to be into, for lack of better term. This has made me abandon the idea of relationships that require any amount of initial work and immediately break up any and all relationships where I DIDN'T feel that initial instantaneous "sweep off feet" connection (I'm not going to call that LAFS cos it is not love).

I guess my only point in this entire thread is that neither method of being in a relationship is more likely to work than anything else. My parents, for example, are very happy and have been married for 24 years and neither of them seem to work at all at the relationship--my mom has even said to me on a couple occasions when I was having troubles, "You know that whole thing about having to 'work hard' at a relationship is bullshit, right, and that if it's right you don't fucking call it 'hard work'" and quite frankly I've decided she's right.

For me personally, I mean, you can put as much work and effort and sweat and toil into things as you like, all of you ;)

Is that why you can read my mind?

Besides. "Crap In Bed" is a myth resulting from poor communication. I'd *make* him be an entertaining lay, even if it meant tying him up and doing everything myself.

Ha-HEM.

Anyway. LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT. We were saying?

And *my* pleasure wouldn't necessearily be coming from sexual pleasure - more like the frisson of the whole debasement aspect of it. I would get a kick out of debasing and dominating him. And I'd get a guilty sick kick out of "oh my god, I'm debasing myself, this is so sick and dirty".

BUT ANYWAY!!!! BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE!

Another reason that I distrust "love at first sight" is that it tends to walk hand in hand with a demon called "True Love" and that is an awful, horrible falacy. There are possibly as many kinds of love as there have been relationships in the history of the world. The idea that there is one kind that is "true" love and the rest are somehow false is really abhorrant to me.

I wonder if "love at first sight" is a more common expression for men, because A) they're more ruled by their penises, and B) many men are (stereotypically) less in touch with their emotions, so the process seems more mysterious to them.

By the time a woman gets to the second date, she's often examined the process with the equivalent of a 100-post thread, and therefore it's not perceived as LAFS, because she's thought about it. Christine's experience just seems to me to be the pattern of most of the "successful" long-term couples that I know. He fell in love instantly, she took a while to come around to it. Or is that just our subtle gender role stereotypes, that men chase and women have to be passive? Has a woman ever played The Long Game successfully?

i agree completely. in fact (maybe this has something to do with kate's point about different types of love) i find the concept "love" to be quite unsatisfactory overall.

(did I close all my parenthases there?)

here's another one just in case)

http://pix.iemoji.com/images/emoji/apple/ios-9/256/high-voltage-sign.png
https://cdn-assets.insomniac.com/emoji_flames.jpg https://cdn-assets.insomniac.com/emoji_flames.jpg https://cdn-assets.insomniac.com/emoji_flames.jpg

Lol hueg. Wasn't something called 'lit' twelve years ago I suppose.