Is chemistry different to lust

[Junket]

Your response doesn't really contest my own... all you're saying is "I haven't experienced it for myself so it doesn't exist".... All I'm saying is there are many with similar/comparable experiences that says it does exist...

You haven't encountered it yet... that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you haven't encountered it...

Sure I have. I experienced romantic love for about 2 years.

It was wonderful.

But it's gone now.

You simply haven't encountered the part where it fades away.

[Aeradalia]

Sure I have. I experienced romantic love for about 2 years.

It was wonderful.

But it's gone now.

You simply haven't encountered the part where it fades away.

Nor do I sit here claiming that it won't happen just because I haven't experience it yet.

Btw... how does your experience of 'romantic love' compare to the experiences of others who have had love for a much longer period of time than you? Can you verify that it was indeed love and not some lessor emotion?

The definition of 'love' seems to be comparative... as well as subjective.

[Gribble]

I love my sister.

If she murdered the next door neighbor I'd break out the hatchet and help her dispose of the remains. There is simply nothing she could do to break that love.

You love a guy.

You find a picture of him kissing a girl on someone's Facebook page and the next day you're telling your friends how small his prick is.

Love in that respect is absolute crap. It's lust atop a few thin layers of nostalgia, and it'll all come toppling down at the drop of a hat.

[Junket]

Nor do I sit here claiming that it won't happen just because I haven't experience it yet.

Btw... how does your experience of 'romantic love' compare to the experiences of others who have had love for a much longer period of time than you? Can you verify that it was indeed love and not some lessor emotion?

The definition of 'love' seems to be comparative... as well as subjective.

I'm sure it is.

There's plenty of women that fall deeply in love for a man with money, though some wouldn't call it love at all.

Romantic love that lasts will eventually just turns into a familial love. Familial love lasts a lot longer than a burning romance. I would say that a very small portion of the population naturally manage a long term romantic relationship.

My evidence is life experiences.

[Aeradalia]

My evidence is life experiences.

Limited life experiences...

This is a matter that requires more information to be certain one way or the other... as you have not experienced it --- not in a way that could be verified... and I'm not sure how to define the current relationship I am in at the moment.

The only way to be certain is have someone who has experienced this kind of love before... whereas this emotion has been verified to be genuine based on the accepted definitions and 'experience.'

Both you and I simply have insufficient information to properly define 'love' between two people that is of a romantic nature and can endure for years, possibly lifelong. The simple fact that your experience only last two years... leaves open the possibility that it wasn't the 'real thing.'

There simply isn't conclusive evidence to say that 'real love' is a 'crock of shit,' or that the older generations are wrong when they say there is such a thing. Further study of what these people who have experienced this are actually 'experiencing' needs to be determined before it can be confirmed to 'not exist' or 'to exist'.

[Junket]

Nope.

See, modern life has changed the rules of love.

Back when, people married young, and died young.

They also didn't have as much information available to them as they do now, (to dispel sexual myths created by the religious leaders). Nor did they have wide use of contraceptives. They also weren't as connected as we are now, to information or people.

Unfortunately children are still raised to believe outdated cultural norms.

Hell, even nature hasn't ruled out polygamy, or serial monogamy in our species, i.e. we still feel compelled to rub our genitals with other people after the passion fizzles out.

What you suggest is that there's an ultimate monogamous goal for everyone, and that anyone who doesn't experience this, simply hasn't found it yet. My point is, what makes you think that this is even something to be found?

If you believe in the bible we can end this conversation right now.

[Aeradalia]

Nope.

See, modern life has changed the rules of love.

Back when, people married young, and died young.

They also didn't have as much information available to them as they do now, (to dispel sexual myths created by the religious leaders). Nor did they have wide use of contraceptives. They also weren't as connected as we are now, to information or people.

Unfortunately children are still raised to believe outdated cultural norms.

Hell, even nature hasn't ruled out polygamy, or serial monogamy in our species, i.e. we still feel compelled to rub our genitals with other people after the passion fizzles out.

What you suggest is that there's an ultimate monogamous goal for everyone, and that anyone who doesn't experience this, simply hasn't found it yet. My point is, what makes you think that this is even something to be found?

If you believe in the bible we can end this conversation right now.

Nope... I'm not a religious person... just as religion itself is a form of control that stems from our need to have a 'pack structure'... there must be some underlying reason for people to want/believe/and even believed to have encountered 'true love.' Until such a concept can be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt (and science works to disprove not prove)... then there still is a chance of it existing.

True... you can say the evidence seems to allude to it not existing... but quite a bit of it is based on shifts in societal norms... and other variables that may or may not have an affect on the expression of this emotion --- if it does exist.

For now... the jury is out on the issue... at least until enough concrete evidence can be presented to prove that such a thing just doesn't exist --- or is a fabrication of society itself through perversion of natural inclinations (which I am more inclined to see as being possible).

I do have my own 'ideas' on the concept of love... I am not a 'die hard fan' of 'true love' being real... but I have to be fair and admit there simply isn't enough proof to disprove its existence... and without enough proof to disprove it... there still remains a chance of such a thing being real...

[Junket]

I never said it wasn't real.

To suggest that love is out there for everyone is synonymous with saying everyone has a soul mate. That there's someone for everyone. And we both know that's not true.

[Aeradalia]

I never said it wasn't real.

To suggest that love is out there for everyone is synonymous with saying everyone has a soul mate. That there's someone for everyone. And we both know that's not true.

Yeah.. I think it's possible for a person to find love... but it seems so many fall short of that for various reasons... Also seems there's 'learning' needed to improve your chances of finding love... or something accepted as being love.

[Mish]

A guy I know keeps saying he is looking for chemistry in a relationship. If a relationship fails it's always because "there was no chemistry".
So how would you guys define chemistry and how differnt is it to lust?

After being in both relationships based on lust and relationships based on chemistry I can tell there is a pretty big difference.

For example, in my last relationship we liked each other sexually, but personality wise we weren't a good fit. We butted heads, we tried to dominate each other and we didn't have a level of understanding necessary to sustain a long term relationship. This is where chemistry comes in, two people should be able to click if they intend to stay together without killing each other in the end.

Coincidentally, this is what I'm looking for at the moment at the expense of easy sex.

[IndiReloaded]

Oxytocin is not used by men for pair bonding. That's vasopressin.

Can you provide the ref for this, Lite? I thought it was oxytocin for men also. Vasopressin is for blood pressure regulation in my old-school education... unless you are making a joke about, ahem, turgor pressure?

EDIT - nevermind, I was on medline today and found the ref. Here it is for those interested:

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17531984[/url]

[KingZ]

Can you provide the ref for this, Lite? I thought it was oxytocin for men also. Vasopressin is for blood pressure regulation in my old-school education... unless you are making a joke about, ahem, turgor pressure?

EDIT - nevermind, I was on medline today and found the ref. Here it is for those interested:

Yeah, what she said.

[Rollerderby]

monogamy isn't for everyone. But then again, you need to have overcome a lot of your own bullshit in order to truly love someone.

To love someone is to want what's best for them all the time, and thinking of yourself second. This does not mean becoming a doormat though.

Lust is great and all, I'm glad I've had my fair share of lusty sexual experieces young b/c I feel that when I am ready to settle down temptation will be lessened because I've already been there.

I've found that very rarely does pure unadulterated lust turn into something real. Best sex for me ever has always been with someone I care deeply about.

Lust in any relationship fades in time, and then if love has been able to build (and as long as sex doesn't completely disappear) then a relationship can keep going.