# love is all around...only one year?



## Roi Marphille

Hi to all!

ups...Italian scientists found that the "love molecule" only lasts one year in the brain...so the butterflies in the stomach fly away  
link: here. 

What do you guys think about it?
Do your butterflies last longer or are they exhausted in two weeks?  

cheers,
Roi
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051129/hl_nm/love_molecule_dc


----------



## irisheyes0583

I read that article too... and it seems to me that it makes a lot of sense!

Whenever we experience anything particularly pleasurable (take for instance, the way you feel when you take your first bite of really REALLY good chocolate!), we are intensely happy for a little while and then, slowly, the super-strong feelings subside and we are left with calmer, more permanent ones.

The first weeks/months of a relationship are *intense* and exciting! At least, for me they are, but then as I grow accostomed to that person, the constant excitement subsides and becomes a general happiness. I can't say which feelings I like more; they're both great!

Now, for how long it takes to exhaust these feelings??? Depends on the person, depends on how often I see him, etc... usually, the super-intense feelings last for about 3 months...


----------



## fenixpollo

I think there's no difference between "him" and "chocolate" or whatever it is that releases those chemicals in the brain that cause pleasure.  

When it's related to a person, we call that feeling of pleasure "love" so that, when the chemical high wears off, we won't dump the person in the gutter.  

We are taught to believe that "love" exists so that our marriage-based, monogomous society doesn't turn into a libertine, sexual free-for-all.

Is this healthy?  Maybe.  Is it honest?  No.

To answer the question, I agree with Irisheyes... for me, the chemical high lasts as long as I am excited about the new relationship -- usually 3 to 6 months.

Smile!


----------



## cantante

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I think there's no difference between "him" and "chocolate" or whatever it is that releases those chemicals in the brain that cause pleasure.
> 
> When it's related to a person, we call that feeling of pleasure "love" so that, when the chemical high wears off, we won't dump the person in the gutter.
> 
> We are taught to believe that "love" exists so that our marriage-based, monogomous society doesn't turn into a libertine, sexual free-for-all.
> 
> Is this healthy? Maybe. Is it honest? No.
> 
> To answer the question, I agree with Irisheyes... for me, the chemical high lasts as long as I am excited about the new relationship -- usually 3 to 6 months.
> 
> Smile!


 
Hi everybody,

I agree, too. 3 to 6 months depending on the person, on how often we meet etc.
In a way I´m glad that the chemical high does not last longer because it renders me useless for the more mundane things of  life, makes me sort of stupid, not being able to concentrate on other important things in the world. ;-)


Cantante


----------



## Fernando

First, I would not give much importance to this kind of "scientific" news. The only thing the article says is there is a molecule with higher concentration when a relation starts and its levels have dropped in the following months.

As an example, I am sure adrenaline goes higher when I watch my (sigh) loved one (1). But certainly adrenaline is not the molecule of love.

Second, my chemicals are simply upside down: my "love" periods stands for five years each. And some of them with the same person.


----------



## Laia

Maybe "butterflies" are gone, but... if the other person leaves you, you feel really bad... I can't remember where I hearded it, but it's easy to understand: it's like a drug. The first times you "eat" the drug, you feel good, and that's why you keep taking the drug (= the first times you are with the guy you like, you feel so good and you need to see him, and you feel "butterflies"...), but then, there's a moment than the drug doesn't make you feel good anymore but you keep taking it 'cause if you don't, you feel terribly bad (there are no more "butterflies", but leaving the other person makes you feel so bad, so sad...) 

cheers


----------



## V52

I don't agree with scientists, if they speak of love. Maybe should be better to distinguish.  Love  can be forever... falling in love for a shorter period... (one year? One day? ) I still  love my wife , even I can't say I am still in love with her. Love is a deeper  feeling, more complex.
Vittorio


----------



## fenixpollo

What's the difference between "loving" a person and "being in love with" a person?


----------



## French_cdn_gurl

First of all I believe that the scientists are in a way correct but in another view incorrect. In my opinion their correct because there is different types of love. For example the eternal love one shares with their parents. You'll always love your parents even if you argue or fight you will always love one another. However a relationship with a person of the opposite sexe has a love that will usually burn for a few months up to a couple years. This depends on how well they get along with each other and how frequently they see one another. I myself was in a year and a half relationship which could have lasted longer but it wasn't the best relationship. As mentionned earlier there are some relationships that share deep love and will last "until death do us part" and others it lasts a couple days, a few weeks or up to a few years. This varies as the age in which the person finds their partner as when your a teenager you yourself are still growing and becoming the person you'll be in the future. Your not done learning from others and dating helps you grow as a person. Love I believe everyone has within themselves and that it's a terrible feeling but at the same time a magical feeling. It's terrible because if you truly love somebody you'll give anything ot make them happy but if it's true love you will never have to give anything.


As for the difference between loving somebody and being in love with them is a different matter in all. Loving a person could be your family, friends, a crush...but if your IN love with them its deeper then just normal love. It means that your heart desires no other. The most wonderful feeling in the world is not only loving somebody but also being IN love with them and knowing the feeling is returned.

However this is simply my opinion on the matter and I'm sure many would argue this case.


----------



## fenixpollo

So "to love" someone is to care for someone, and "to be IN love" is to care for someone in a romantic way?  Or is the distinction in the depth/strength of the feeling?


----------



## French_cdn_gurl

The distinction in my opinion would be the depth of the love. You could love somebody and be romantic. A crush or a friend you care about romanticaly however being IN love with somebody would to me be considered a deep love for somebody.


----------



## Roi Marphille

I don't think to _be in love_ and _being romantic_ are linked. I guess most of the times are, but not as a rule. 
I mean, to be romantic requires a kind of let's say _technique_. Some may be very very clumsy in this area  . I'm not speaking about me though  ...
I think most of us understand being romantic as doing the poem-stuff and gifts...I think you can be romantic just being kind, respectful and to care about the other person...wow...did I say that?


----------



## Laia

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> I think most of us understand being romantic as doing the poem-stuff and gifts...I think you can be romantic just being kind, respectful and to care about the other person...wow...did I say that?


 
First of all, yeah, you've just said that  ...

Second, yes, I agree... and I also think that the poem-stuff and gifts are cloying sometimes... aren't they?


And finally, in my opinion, the "love molecule" does not exist. I think there could be "love molecule*s*" instead... complex biology for complex feelings... and of course modulated (_modulados_) by learning (_aprendizaje)_ and our cultural environment... what do you think? 

And yeah, once again, excuse me for my English (today is worst than ever...)


----------



## BoneChillin

I got to give ya props,my man!

I think if you “do right” by your partner, you will do just fine. Like the lyrics of the song, “Treat her like a lady and she’ll be good to you.” (to quote the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose song)

”In love” is just an emotional state of being that won’t last for long. In the long run, you gotta pay your dues, and it will pay off with satisfaction, and a relationship that is satisfying and “off the chain!”





			
				Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> I think you can be romantic just being kind, respectful and to care about the other person...wow...did I say that?


----------



## Roi Marphille

BoneChillin said:
			
		

> I got to give ya props,my man!



ups...is that to me?   




			
				BoneChillin said:
			
		

> ”In love” is just an emotional state of being that won’t last for long. In the long run, you gotta pay your dues, and it will pay off with satisfaction, and a relationship that is satisfying and “off the chain!”


yes, you may be right...but being in love _*theorically*_ bears to unbalance in oneself...is that it? we are kind of dumber...what do you guys think? 
So this let's called it one-year-mechanism is wisdom against unbalance. 
Does it make sense?

PS:I'm not an expert in the subject...I think last time I was in love was on 1997! Maybe times are changin'


----------



## Laia

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> being in love _*theorically*_ bears to unbalance in oneself...is that it? we are kind of dumber...what do you guys think?
> So this let's called it one-year-mechanism is wisdom against unbalance.
> Does it make sense?


 
Uauuu... what a theory!! and what happens to people who _fall in love_ almost every week? what about the "enamoradizos"?... you know... always unbalanced, never balanced... (this is myself   jejeje  )


----------



## Roi Marphille

Laia said:
			
		

> Uauuu... what a theory!! and what happens to people who _fall in love_ almost every week? what about the "enamoradizos"?... you know... always unbalanced, never balanced... (this is myself  jejeje  )


they just rock while walking in the street, throw pieces of bread to the swams in the Park and watch "Titanic" once a week...and weep.


----------



## Laia

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> they just rock while walking in the street, throw pieces of bread to the swams in the Park and watch "Titanic" once a week...and weep.


 
I disagree with you...


----------



## French_cdn_gurl

I must say that the words "I love you" are too comonly used. How many of you have told 3/4 if not all your b/f's or g/f's that you love them? Im guilty of it. I have now ceased using those three words because they have lost their meaning.


----------



## Anna Più

Hi,
I’m not a scientist… I can’t say if only one year…  but… has a relationship sense without butterflies... ? 
A+


----------



## Laia

Anna Più said:
			
		

> Hi,
> I’m not a scientist… I can’t say if only one year… but… has a relationship sense without butterflies... ?
> A+


 
Sincerely... I don't know!! ... butterflies... unbalanced person... rock while walking in the street...  

According to Roi's theory... I think that yes, it has sense a relationship without butterflies... but not the first year! I'm wrong?

It's bizarre... isn't it?


----------



## Roi Marphille

Laia said:
			
		

> Sincerely... I don't know!! ... butterflies... unbalanced person... rock while walking in the street...
> 
> According to Roi's theory... I think that yes, it has sense a relationship without butterflies... but not the first year! I'm wrong?
> 
> It's bizarre... isn't it?


wow, wow, wow
I'm definetally not an expert in that!  
Some people pointed in this thread that the butterfly status disappears but love remains, I think this is senseful. Just imagine that all couples break up after the butterflies are gone...whatta disaster that would be!


----------



## fenixpollo

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Just imagine that all couples break up after the butterflies are gone...whatta disaster that would be!


 Au contraire, Roi.  It wouldn't be a disaster -- it would be called "free love" and it would be groovy, baby!


----------



## Anna Più

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> wow, wow, wow
> I'm definetally not an expert in that!
> Some people pointed in this thread that the butterfly status disappears but love remains, I think this is senseful. Just imagine that all couples break up after the butterflies are gone...whatta disaster that would be!


 
Hi,
If love remains it has all the sense to be with a person. The point is when love is confused with acomodation...  I prefer to feel butterflies again! 
A+


----------



## JazzByChas

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Au contraire, Roi. It wouldn't be a disaster -- it would be called "free love" and it would be groovy, baby!


Say Mike...are you sure you're not a 'hippie' that was born just a little late, perhaps? 

As for the "feelings" of being in love, I would say that is a chemical "high" if you will. Just as Erin stated, like the results of eating chocolate, this can only be a temporal thing. The "high" will wear off, whether in a short time (weeks/months) or a long time (years).

Now, at the risk of sounding prudish, I will say, as I believe a couple of others here have stated, that "love," or more precisely being "in love" is a chemical "high"...a feeling of euphoria you experience when a relationship is exciting and new, and that will wear off. And as Vittorio states,



> I still love my wife , even I can't say I am still in love with her. Love is a deeper feeling, more complex.


 
”Love” in the truest sense, is not merely a feeling, but a commitment to “have and to hold, care for and cherish, through sickness and health, better or worse, richer or poorer, ‘till death do [you] part.” Feelings may change, but a relationship has to be worked upon. Yes…I said “work!’ No, that may not be “romantic” but it is the way of life. What was that saying…, “you can choose your friends, but not your family.” Well, if a relationship is to succeed for the long term, it must be based upon mutual respect and a willingness to make it work, i.e. you must choose to have a long-term relationship with your (hopefully) best friend.

And let me examine your thought a little further, Mike :



> So "to love" someone is to care for someone, and "to be IN love" is to care for someone in a romantic way? Or is the distinction in the depth/strength of the feeling?


I would agree, if one defines “care for” as I have stated above in the classic marriage vows.

Now being romantic, (especially you gentlemen in here  ) is also an act of the will where we keep reminding our beloved that she (or inversely, he) is the most prized thing in our lives…I’m all for this, but it takes wit, cleverness, and imagination, as well as a being a good “student” of your beloved: know what s/he likes or dislikes, what makes her/him happy, and listen to all those clues they (especially women) drop about the kinds of things they like you to do for them…

So, to bring this baby back to the topic  , "love" as a feeling will be short term: romance and committment will last as long as you are willing to work at it.

_”Hello young lovers, whoever you are, I hope your troubles are few. All my good wishes go with you tonight….”_
from “The King and I” 
Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II


----------

