Romance: Is It Born Or Made? (A Look at Love At First Sight)

SirBoglor

SirBoglor

[b][I][FONT=Satisfy]It's over, isn't it?[/FONT][/I
    • 527
    Posts
    9
    Years
    Greetings everyone. This is a debate that I have been discussing with a few friends, and I think that it would be a great one for PC to discuss as well.

    The debate is whether or not love is achieved through time and relationship-building, or if it simply happens the moment that you meet someone. There are arguments for both sides, and I'd like to discuss them as well as my own views.

    Many believe that love is something that just happens when you meet the person of your dreams. "Love at first sight" comes to mind for many when they think of this. It's something that just clicks, and at that moment you decide your feelings. The biggest counter-argument to this is relationships that happen years after knowing each other. If the "first sight" logic was true, then the attraction would have immediately been there. What counters this, however, is that perhaps the hypothetical couple felt a subconscious attraction that bubbled up later on.

    Others simply feel that this "first sight" approach to romance is silly, and that true love is built over time and effort, and that any attraction upon first glance is probably physical and nothing else. There are no real arguments against this, other than the fact that some people absolutely swear that love at first sight has happened to them.

    So the question is: who is right? While this response may sound lame and politically-correct, I don't believe that there is a particular right answer. I've come to believe that either concepts are true depending on who you are. I personally find "love at first sight" to be a rather idiotic concept. But that's coming from my perspective only. For someone else, the idea of love not blooming immediately is likely just as stupid.

    So my question is less about which is correct for everyone, but rather what is correct for you. Let me know your thoughts, as well as anything else that you may want to include!
     
    I believe firmly in getting to know the person! This way you'll find out if they really like you, if they're the right one for you, etc. There's people out there just ready to use you, if you don't get to know someone you're taking a huge risk imo
     
    Love at first sight is nothing more than base lust, in my opinion. Obviously definitions will vary as people will vary, but I've never personally subscribed to this idea that you can be in love with someone the second you see them for the very first time.

    To me, it's an emotional connection built through getting to know someone, and physical appearance is completely irrelevant to that. I realise that isn't the case with some people either, but that's my personal philosophy. I think that two people can have a non-romantic relationship that can suddenly develop into one over time, but that's down to how those two people work and process their emotions - as I said, everyone is different.
     
    honestly? i think it could go either way. that sounds confusing but like.. i feel like, you could meet someone or bump into someone, etc etc, and then feel like you like them a lot or feel../something/ about them but youre not sure? and then you guys start talking, and then get the friendship/relationship/whatever building up, and then you realize the feeling you felt then was love.

    or, it could go where you meet the person, think they're cool and have a lot of common interests, and then start talking to the person, building up a friendship first and then relationship. however no matter which situation, i firmly believe in getting to know the person first and building up something, before just jumping in a relationship. i have made the mistake of just jumping in a relationship before, and it didnt work out, for various reasons.

    but..uh, i guess thats my view point. it seems complicated i guess, to me at least. but thats how i see it.
     
    When you first see someone and think that it's love at first sight, I think that's more of a "need" to know the person. The beginnings of a connection can be there, because there has to be something that makes a person think "I have a deep want to talk to this person and learn what they're all about" about certain people but not everyone.

    For me, love doesn't happen until you know the other person. And that takes time to happen. It's after the newness wears off, it's after the other person's weaknesses/faults are revealed, it's after the relationship has had some problems that were worked through together. Those things will take time to happen.

    Everyone is different, though. Some people claim that the infatuation stage--which is the "honeymoon phase", or the first year-ish of a relationship--counts as love. But other people feel that love is the deeper feeling that's developed over time. There's no real wrong answer, so long as the two people in a relationship are open in their communication for when and why they feel they're in love with the other person. (And how they show their feelings.)
     
    Both. There are people who've entered relationships on pure romance.

    For those that haven't, romance has to be made. Love is quite a construct. And long after marriage, in order to keep said marriage going, romance has to be kept alive. That takes work.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top