How do you define being in love?

[Josephine1012]

This thread is a bit of a compliment to the "How many times have you been in love?" thread but a little different.

How do you define being in love? What do you feel or expect to feel, for that matter?

I've experienced two different types of love in my life:

(these are definitions according to me, so please add more if you can think of them)

1. There is the love which is based on mutual understanding, seeking out each other's company because it makes you happy, and caring deeply about well-being of the other person. Now truthfully, I can experience this type of love for both my friends and significant others. (this is NOT a common way for me to feel towards either gender, I only have one friend of the same gender whom I can say I truly love) With significant others this feeling is usually coupled with strong physical attraction. I find that this type of affection is more consistent when it's directed at significant other than just a platonic friend.


2. Mad Love. For me it was a highly unpleasant experience. I think it mainly rooted in uncertainty of the situation and my own definition of what that person was. (Keep in mind I'm an idealist, so it may work differently for NTs) I knew several things about this person, though I would not say I truly knew him, he could have been considered a close friend by some definition (based on the volume of time we spent together) who constantly needed me for emotional support, but in such a way where he never asked for it. He was always depressed and being around me made him happy. Having this effect on someone's emotional well-being caused me to consider this person more and more. He became more important because of my own implied importance to him. He never actually stated it, I sort of interpreted it. This started my invention of his character (this was easy due to his very introverted nature - ISTP), so whatever meaning I wanted to give to his actions - I could, as he rarely explained them.

When we started a physical relationship, he was less and less emotionally available and that caused me to get attached more (I felt that I was failing him in some way). He was very physically attractive, so winning his heart also seemed like quite the feat, which egged me on even further to solidify things and make him fully mine. His introversion fed my ego even more, because he dismissed most people as unworthy of any time. This allowed me to infer my own worth to him, which was never actually stated directly (so I never had the assurance, just the hope). I felt a range of very strong emotions, most of them were painful, but there were glimpses of happiness which seemed to mean the world at the time. This relationship was obviously doomed from the start since it was based on my own invention, but when it failed there was a strong sense of failure, which made me especially emotional. And my extreme emotions implied to me a sense of deep loss. (not the other way around) Once I removed myself from the situation, I realized what a blessing it truly was that it was over.


I have not experienced any other type of romantic attachment, so I'm curious is that all there is?

[eternaltriangle]

I would use Venn diagrams. Love is the interstition of lust and true friendship.

[dalidaisy]

How the hell should I know?

"Love" seems far too complicated to define. I've heard so many people say so many different things. How the hell does a person even know if what they are feeling actually is "love"?

This topic always makes my head swim. There's just no logic...

[Josephine1012]

This topic always makes my head swim. There's just no logic...

haha, aka the NF trap!

[demaugustus]

Someone wise once told me, "You know if you're in love with someone if you'd die for them." Unfortunately, some people only realize how true or untrue their love is for someone in the face of death.

[Josephine1012]

Someone wise once told me, "You know if you're in love with someone if you'd die for them."

I don't think that's something you can know without being faced with the actual situation. Hehe, but that is not exactly the fairy tale ending...

I would be distrustful of any person making such promises especially in cozy circumstances.

[TheLastMohican]

This topic always makes my head swim. There's just no logic...
Never fear, there is a glint of reason: Physiology! :cheesy:
Very basically, I think of love in terms of the two main hormones involved: oxytocin and dopamine. The former creates the stable, long-term kind, including 50-year marriages and familial bonds. The latter is associated with "passionate love," the intense and temporary kind. The reasons for the hormone production vary, and obviously are influenced by the intellect, but I think more of the influence is the other way around.

In other words, the only logic to be found is in the causes of the irrationality of it all (which is of course circular reasoning).

[dalidaisy]

Someone wise once told me, "You know if you're in love with someone if you'd die for them." Unfortunately, some people only realize how true or untrue their love is for someone in the face of death.

Damnit! Does that mean I "love" my country? Because I signed a contract to defend it to my death. Luckily, that contract ran out...

[demaugustus]

I don't think that's something you can know without being faced with the actual situation. Hehe, but that is not exactly the fairy tale ending...

I would be distrustful of any person making such promises especially in cozy circumstances.

The "wise" person who told me this risked his life for the person he loved. So I think it's a valid source. He jumped into a raging river to save his girlfriend who was drowning. By all accounts they both should have been dead, but luck was on their side that day.

[dalidaisy]

Never fear, there is a glint of reason: Physiology! :cheesy:
Very basically, I think of love in terms of the two main hormones involved: oxytocin and dopamine. The former creates the stable, long-term kind, including 50-year marriages and familial bonds. The latter is associated with "passionate love," the intense and temporary kind. The reasons for the hormone production vary, and obviously are influenced by the intellect, but I think more of the influence is the other way around.

Can you have them both at the same time? Or, when one wears off, can you produce the other? How exactly do you tell the difference? Could your mind cause production of a certain one just by sheer will, or is it something that happens without thought? Tell me more, wise one...

[Josephine1012]

The "wise" person who told me this risked his life for the person he loved. So I think it's a valid source. He jumped into a raging river to save his girlfriend who was drowning. By all accounts they both should have been dead, but luck was on their side that day.

oh, I agree with you, to risk your life for someone probably means you truly love them romantically, or in some other way (depending on a person). I was just hoping there was a less dangerous way to define it :p

[demaugustus]

Love is an action, not a word or even necessarily a feeling. If some fool tells you that he'd risk his life for you on the first date, then you should be very worried.

[TheLastMohican]

Can you have them both at the same time? Or, when one wears off, can you produce the other? How exactly do you tell the difference? Could your mind cause production of a certain one just by sheer will, or is it something that happens without thought? Tell me more, wise one...

Most of that is over my head; I only have rudimentary knowledge of how the hormones interact. I do know that oxytocin is produced simply by familiarity, and dopamine can have occasional surges, so yes, you can have both simultaneously. (Serotonin levels take a plunge when dopamine is wreaking havoc, however, so oxytocin levels might be likewise altered. Passionate love is definitely not good for mental or emotional stability.)
I doubt that you can produce the hormones by sheer will. Our chemical reactions are automatic, so trying to control them (by means other than introducing or avoiding stimuli) seems rather futile.

[demaugustus]

The "wise" person who told me this risked his life for the person he loved. So I think it's a valid source. He jumped into a raging river to save his girlfriend who was drowning. By all accounts they both should have been dead, but luck was on their side that day.

Interestingly, this "wise" person was INTJ.

[Storm]

Shamelessly stolen from another thread:

"When you fall in love, it is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake, and then it subsides. And when it subsides, you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots are become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the desire to mate every second of the day. It is not lying awake at night imagining that he is kissing every part of your body. No... don't blush. I am telling you some truths. For that is just being in love; which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over, when being in love has burned away. Doesn't sound very exciting, does it? But it is! " Quote from Captain Corelli's Mandolin

[Kele-De]

I can't imagine love being defined until I am in it... although I do believe the basis for it is something we have very little control over if we stumble upon a compatible mate. I think it begins with genetic and hormonal attraction, then we build upon it by intellectual and sexual interaction and the combination creates emotional attachment. I think true intimacy takes time and it is different for everyone because our histories can be complex.

[JustMel]

How the hell should I know?

"Love" seems far too complicated to define. I've heard so many people say so many different things. How the hell does a person even know if what they are feeling actually is "love"?

This topic always makes my head swim. There's just no logic...

If I were a religous person I'd say "Amen sister" but seeing that I'm not I'll stick with "I agree".

Love for me is different every time I've experienced it. I can't define it. In some cases it's not really love it's affection.

My daddy says that being in love and being in heat feel the same at first so you shouldn't rush anything until you know you're not just in heat. Can you tell he had more girls that boys? :laugh:

[Stratego]

There is also familial love...

And since I don't believe I've ever been in love with another person in the commonly understood "romantic" sense (I've exprienced infatuation and lust many times over, but not true love, whatever that is) I use familial love as my only working theory of the feeling, if that makes any sense.

My sister, for instance. She and I are genetically closer than any two people on earth (same for my brothers and me, of course) but we are also close as siblings and adult women--I regard her as my truest, and only best friend. I would do anything for her, suffer any pain, endure any torment, and yes, I would die for her. In an instant, without hesitation, if I had to.

I would still feel the same for her were she hugely fat, covered in boils, broken by disease, riddled with plague, or a vegetable lying in a coma hooked up to feeding tubes. My sister is my sister, always, and no matter what, my love for her never changes.

Digression:
And it's not like we've always had the best relationship. She went through a period of drug abuse which was a great trial for the whole family. One night during our high school years she came home very late and was thoroughly drunk and high. We got into an argument and she pushed me down the porch stairs when I tried to prevent her from going out again--I got a concussion and broke a few ribs. I was very angry at her for a long time, but I never stopped loving her. (she eventually got herself together and apologized for hurting me, btw)
/digression

Now, as adults, we've got a much stronger relationship then we've ever had. We trust each other, do what we can for each other, and keep each other sane. So this is how I define love--it's never ending, never changing, not subject to any conditions--and it's something that you instinctively feel and never question. It takes work, or maintenance, but it's not forced or artificial despite that.

And it's not a volatile, unpredictable alchemy, either---I think attraction and infatuation have that heat and explosive rush (at first) but love, perhaps, grows every day and gets richer and deeper and so natural to your biology you almost forget it's there.

I think romantic love must be something akin to this, perhaps not as sure, as fixed, as instinctual...but...close, maybe.

[Imposcillator]

I think Storm summed it up pretty nicely.

It's important to make a distinction between love and being in love.

I also believe it's possible for the feeling of being in love to come back from time to time; it's not something that dies out when a relationship lasts for a long time. It is, however, love that keeps two people together and it is love that sets the foundations for...well...awesomeness. :)

[Josephine1012]

I guess one of the things that sparked my curiousity was whether it was possible to feel the craziness of mad love, without that feeling of wanting possession (because you don't have it) the feeling of constant doubt regarding whether the affections are returned. Basically I'm curious if another person truly makes us feel those things or if it rooted deep down in our own selves.

I guess I'm by no means denying the possiblity, I just have never experienced that. What I have experienced I do not wish to repeat, because it wasn't real and I suspect my feelings would have been different if I succeeded in achieving that "possession" and I was certain that affections were returned. Looking back on it there was nothing else holding it together. I suspect the sense of achievement and reaching a goal (that required a lot of work) would subside relatively quickly, and for me would probably turn into a sense of obligation.

I don't know that it's possible to fully connect with someone (just a theory, as it could be proven otherwise with a different experience) and at the same time invent them in your head, which I think was the underlying cause of my obsession.

[Storm]

I guess one of the things that sparked my curiousity was whether it was possible to feel the craziness of mad love, without that feeling of wanting possession (because you don't have it) the feeling of constant doubt regarding whether the affections are returned. Basically I'm curious if another person truly makes us feel those things or if it rooted deep down in our own selves.

By "mad love" I assume you mean infatuation. (If not, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.) And yes, it is possible to feel infatuation without doubt that the other person returns your affections. Actually, when you get infatuation coupled with knowing the other person feels the same way, it is quite maddening, but in a good way.

[Inky]

I think the Utilitarian Love Poem sums it up nicely:

"You are aesthetically pleasing,
the reason for which I first noticed in you.
And later I found your personality equally pleasing.
I also noted your chest to waist ratio is suitable for birthing.
Therefore, I think you should live in my house."

[TheLastMohican]

I think the Utilitarian Love Poem sums it up nicely:

"You are aesthetically pleasing,
the reason for which I first noticed in you.
And later I found your personality equally pleasing.
I also noted your chest to waist ratio is suitable for birthing.
Therefore, I think you should live in my house."

The utilitarian poet is apparently ignorant of the fact that the waist-to-hip ratio matters more. Chest size has nothing to do with birthing.

[JustMel]

The utilitarian poet is apparently ignorant of the fact that the waist-to-hip ratio matters more. Chest size has nothing to do with birthing.

You know I like your ideas and thoughts on most things. You know I enjoy your logic and have a great respect for you and the way you present ideas and such while being so young. With that said, I can't wait for you to fall in love the first time and realize there is no logic behind it. For INTJs admitting that is a bitch but it is a fact. It's one of those things that you can't always explain. You can explain the reasons you love someone but you often realize that even that isn't the true depth of what you feel.

I'm not even remotely talking about infatuation.

[TheLastMohican]

I can't wait for you to fall in love the first time and realize there is no logic behind it.

Well, we evolved to experience the process, and I would consider that logical in the context of the survival of the species. We find certain physical traits attractive for good biological reasons. The "ideal" female waist-to-hip ratio (70%) is correlated with higher fertility and longer life spans.
I suppose you're talking about the interpersonal aspect of love, but even that is a result of important hormones without which humans could not thrive. We are social creatures (yes, even the introverts among us :p), and we depend on cooperative groups for widespread success. There is no truly objective logic in the grand scheme of things (if you want to wonder why we think that we matter anyway), but there are evolutionary reasons for the existence and selectiveness of love.

[Storm]

Well, we evolved to experience the process, and I would consider that logical in the context of the survival of the species. We find certain physical traits attractive for good biological reasons. The "ideal" female waist-to-hip ratio (70%) is correlated with higher fertility and longer life spans.
I suppose you're talking about the interpersonal aspect of love, but even that is a result of important hormones without which humans could not thrive. We are social creatures (yes, even the introverts among us :p), and we depend on cooperative groups for widespread success. There is no truly objective logic in the grand scheme of things (if you want to wonder why we think that we matter anyway), but there are evolutionary reasons for the existence and selectiveness of love.

Aw, I'm with JustMel. It will be an interesting day when love hits you right in the kisser. Suddenly, while you'll still be aware of all those scientific reasons and all that, you'll be at a loss to explain it.

[JustMel]

but there are evolutionary reasons for the existence and selectiveness of love.

I'll buy you a t-shirt with that printed on it to wear when s/he comes along and knocks you on your proverbial ass and you watch the little stars and birdies twitter around your head. After you get up you can read your shirt and be reminded that it's "only evolutionary and chemical". :laugh:

Real love can not be explained even by brain chemistry because you don't consistently produce the chemicals at the same levels day in and day out but the love stays whether the chemicals are peaking or not. Somethings just are. I don't deny that the first rushes of love and lust are both chemical and probably evolutionary but the love that comes after that is not explainable. There are times the chemicals and such peak and you 'fall in love' all over again.

For some things there is no logic.

[Sinequanon]

I don't deny that the first rushes of love and lust are both chemical and probably evolutionary but the love that comes after that is not explainable. There are times the chemicals and such peak and you 'fall in love' all over again.

For some things there is no logic.
And even if you are about to provide an explanation, maybe stop and think about whether or not the explanation is as important as the experience? It takes wisdom to learn that not every solution is an answer.

[TheLastMohican]

Real love can not be explained even by brain chemistry because you don't consistently produce the chemicals at the same levels day in and day out but the love stays whether the chemicals are peaking or not.

Presumably different factors in the environment can cause the hormones to fluctuate. The love "stays" because oxytocin is produced more consistently.
MRIs provide the really interesting information about neural patterns.

I'm not quite sure what you and Storm are getting at. Being in love is not going to convince me that my hormones are inactive; quite the opposite. Knowing the biological reasons for feelings does not render the feelings inconsequential.

[JustMel]

Presumably different factors in the environment can cause the hormones to fluctuate. The love "stays" because oxytocin is produced more consistently.
MRIs provide the really interesting information about neural patterns.

I'm not quite sure what you and Storm are getting at. Being in love is not going to convince me that my hormones are inactive; quite the opposite. Knowing the biological reasons for feelings does not render the feelings inconsequential.

But the feelings do render the biological reasons inconsequential. And being in love will convince you of a lot of things you didn't think anyone could convince you of. It truly is one of those things that you have to have experience to understand.

[Storm]

I'm not quite sure what you and Storm are getting at. Being in love is not going to convince me that my hormones are inactive; quite the opposite. Knowing the biological reasons for feelings does not render the feelings inconsequential.

Of course you don't get what we're saying. And we're not denying that chemicals have an effect (although there is the question of whether being in love creates the chemicals, or if the chemicals create the feelings itself, that's a whole other ballgame, though). We're saying that to explain it completely by chemicals is to miss the real point. I'm going to use a line that I know you're going to hate:
"You'll understand when you're older."

[Sinequanon]

I'm going to use a line that I know you're going to hate:
"You'll understand when you're older."
Storm loses the "saying-"You'll-understand-when-you're-older"-without-saying-"you'll-understand-when-you're-older"" game.

Though now that we've explicitly defined what we've all been saying obliquely, do you feel better? Just curious.

[TheLastMohican]

But the feelings do render the biological reasons inconsequential.

I don't think either can be proven more important. While perhaps not of very much use now, knowledge of the biological causes could be very useful in the future, for producing or inhibiting love and/or attachment. The feelings, on the other hand, are more fundamental to our reasons for living, but are liable to interfere with efficiency in other pursuits (which can be very dangerous in a competitive world).

We're saying that to explain it completely by chemicals is to miss the real point.

Eh, some people just like science. I want to study the reasons for a lot of things, and that is largely due to my emotions, so ... I could just say that you can never understand my perspective. :p

[Storm]

Storm loses the "saying-"You'll-understand-when-you're-older"-without-saying-"you'll-understand-when-you're-older"" game.

Though now that we've explicitly defined what we've all been saying obliquely, do you feel better? Just curious.

I didn't know we were playing a game. :embarassed: Do I feel better? No.

[Josephine1012]

I think it's an issue of introspection. Though, I feel very strongly, I haven't felt the exact same feeling of love more than once. As Mel pointed out, it's different every time. That doesn't really make one better than the other, though i would say the craziness is undesirable to me...

I wonder if it's a function of experience, greater understanding (having to do with self) or does it really have to do with the object of our affection. I don't think trying to analyze the nature of our feelings makes them any less significant. But it's interesting to think about it from different perspectives.

I agree with the expression "we only love once", but with the underlying assumption that we only experience a specific variation of love once after that it evolves..

[Rudy]

Well, "love" I define as being willing to sacrifice personal well-being for the well-being of another. This could be as simple as giving up a show that you want to so that the person you love will be happy.

There are differing degrees of this, of course. By this definition, all the people I'm friends with I love to some extent, because I'm willing to accommodate them to some extent for no other reason that to make them happy.

The strongest love is when you care more about another person's happiness than you do about your own. In the extreme example, willingness to knowingly give your life for theirs. In healthy minds, this is generally limited to the deepest friendships and relationships.

Being in love, I would define as a combination of this feeling, and sexual attraction.

The ideal love would also include mutual respect and loyalty.

[JustMel]

I don't belive that you can only love once. I believe that you can love multiple times in your life and each experience is different. You gain something or learn something from each one that is helpful to you in the next. I have loved many people in my life and each one has taught me something different.

[LaoTzu]

How do you define being in love?

For myself, it's a selfless devotion to bringing happiness to the other.

It's not an all-encompassing thing, where I lose myself in the life of my lady... It's more that I find myself devising new and better ways to enrich her life, without having deliberately questioned myself on the subject.
My mind just flows there of it's own accord, and It brings me joy to think of the happiness I intend to bring her.


On the flipside:
My relationships begin to fail, when I question her willingness to afford me the same courtesy. :)

[Fecal McAngry]

Oh, but people often do. "If you love me, then..." is the catch-phrase of relationships - asking "you" to accommodate "my" needs in the name of love.


To me, love should not "fill a hole". A hole in one's life, or emotions cannot be filled with love. As you say, that is too much of an expectation (or burden) to place on another person. It's like asking someone to "make me happy", or "entertain me". I have now relegated that person to a trained performer - an actor, there to fulfill my emotional needs. In turn, then, I should expect that person to ask for payment for services rendered.
True, but of course, as INTP Keirsey has written about up the wazzo, we DO seek people who can compensate for our weaknesses--->find them fascinating--->attempt to change them into versions of ourselves.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Jinxu]

I would use Venn diagrams. Love is the interstition of lust and true friendship.

I like that idea. It gives a good visual definition of love. I remember seeing a diagram just like it in this forum somewhere.

I disagree with the definition that love is due to a bunch of chemicals. I think it is the feeling of being love that are caused by the chemicals. It does that clarify what is the cause and effect relationship between falling into love and the production of these chemicals. It could be theorized that falling into love causes the production of neurotransmitters, which produces the feeling of falling into love.

[wittykitty]

Someone wise once told me, "You know if you're in love with someone if you'd die for them." Unfortunately, some people only realize how true or untrue their love is for someone in the face of death.

This is half of how I see love.

I would use Venn diagrams. Love is the interstition of lust and true friendship.

And this is the other.

Personally, I would say what eternaltriangle is defining the cause, whereas what demvesalius is saying is the effect.

[Xanthippe]

I've experienced a combination of lust and like, which I thought was love (all the rapport with no emotional connection). A little later, I experienced what I think might have been love - lots of physical attraction at first, emotional vulnerability and empathy between two unreadable NTs, and the most incredible intellectual connection. I think I loved and he liked, though, because while he clearly cared about my problems, I lost my mind completely when he went through emotional trauma. The physical chemistry was great, too, but I was too scared. Maybe it could have been love, but I don't think I've ever felt real romantic love.

[Zsych]

Love - I consider to be basic good will towards another person without really wanting something back (although you'd appreciate it)

Being in love: A combination of the above, and a serious attraction to a person also, so that you want to be with them.

[Djeri]

But the feelings do render the biological reasons inconsequential. And being in love will convince you of a lot of things you didn't think anyone could convince you of. It truly is one of those things that you have to have experience to understand.

Having been in love on multiple occasions - I would not say that feelings render biological reasons inconsequential. So I think your postulation of "being in love will change your view on things" is not absolutely correct; I've been through it and yet have many of the same views as TheLastMohican seems to have (from what he's stated on the subject).

Yes, analyzing the experience to death while you're having the experience can disengage you from said experience, and spoil the whole thing a bit. But I think there's nothing wrong--and perhaps something to be gained--from stepping back once in a while from the very consuming experience of all those endorphins and hormones and taking a logical, rational look at what's going on.

I like knowing the reasons behind my behaviors, feelings, impulses, and so on. It makes the chaos of emotion less threatening, more comprehensible. It helps me control my behavior and impulses if I know the reasoning (psychological, biological, chemical, evolutionary...) behind it. Part of why I went into the psychology field, really. I still enjoy the positive experiences, I still engage in them, but for me, it helps to know the causal effects.

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to let yourself get lost in feelings, especially the addictive, consuming feelings of being in love. It can cross the line to dysfunctional at times, more like a high that keeps you from thinking clearly or focusing on your work outside of the relationship, or even to focus on the less positive aspects of the relationship. It's important, I think, to be able to appropriately detach.

I disagree with the definition that love is due to a bunch of chemicals. I think it is the feeling of being love that are caused by the chemicals. . . It could be theorized that falling into love causes the production of neurotransmitters, which produces the feeling of falling into love.

That's a very... nice, romantic theory. It's as if you want to believe love is higher/more "real" or important or spiritual or special than just chemical reactions driven by evolutionary reasons, and that's understandable. A lot of people want to believe stuff like that. I think such romantic tendencies are blinding and inhibit objectivity, but hey, YMMV.

[Jinxu]

That's a very... nice, romantic theory. It's as if you want to believe love is higher/more "real" or important or spiritual or special than just chemical reactions driven by evolutionary reasons, and that's understandable. A lot of people want to believe stuff like that. I think such romantic tendencies are blinding and inhibit objectivity, but hey, YMMV.

No, the reason is because it fits the model of the cause/effect relationship between emotion and stimuli. i.e., an outside source is the cause, the emotion is the effect. In the case of love for example, a human being is the cause, the feeling of being in love (an emotion) is the effect. The neurotransmitters is the 'intermediate' (let's call it).

One problem with your theory is that you don't consider the process that one goes through as they are falling into love. And that process could have a major impact. The point is I think my theory explains things better.

[rahdam]

This is not very "INTJ" of me:
I spent a lot of time thinking about love, being in love, etc. in my very first relationship.
And never again have I bothered to think about it too much. Just let it be.

[Vagrant]

I define love as what it was to me last -- when my heart spoke before my mind about someone.

Which is uncharacteristic of me, or INTJ's in general.

[Imposcillator]

This topic always makes my head swim. There's just no logic...

For some things there is no logic.

This is not very "INTJ" of me:
I spent a lot of time thinking about love, being in love, etc. in my very first relationship.
And never again have I bothered to think about it too much. Just let it be.

I define love as what it was to me last -- when my heart spoke before my mind about someone.

Which is uncharacteristic of me, or INTJ's in general.

Toughest (and scariest, for some) thing for the INTJ to admit:

I cannot explain this with logic! :scared:

*dun dun duuuuunnnnnnnnnnnn!!!*


Being in love for me is one of the main reasons to be alive, and one of the things that makes you feel most alive. :)

I also agree with everything JustMel has said in this thread.

[larkin]

The physical chemistry was great, too, but I was too scared. Maybe it could have been love, but I don't think I've ever felt real romantic love.

Wait, sounds great, so what happened?

I have a theory somewhere about the difference between chemical and emotional attraction. The friendship side is emotional and lust, well, that's chemical. When you suddenly think to yourself I like the way that guy catches a cab. Or the way that girl holds a drink. That has just got to be pheromones.

So I kind of agree with the Last Mohican here, weirdly enough, that if you want to talk science you probably could. Does that make it any less magical? Nope...science always asks more questions than it answers.