Love at first sight is an impossibility because love is something you feel not something you see. If you have feelings based on your sight alone, that is called lust, not love.
Do I believe in lust at first sight?
Yes, there are many beautiful people that you can be attracted to on first sight. But to say that you can have love at first sight would be doing a great disservice to love.
The concept of love at first sight stems from the creation of romantic fiction. In a land with fairies and magical enchantments is about the only place it can exist – even cupid had to hit you with an arrow first.
The underlying complexity of what is truly meant by love at first sight further illustrates this type of delusional thinking.
I won’t say that it’s an impossibility because I believe anything is possible but let’s get real here. Love at first sight would have to be done through eye contact and not through just seeing someone or observing someone, that is purely lust.
When you make eye contact with another individual you would have to see into the very depths of this person in that instant. There would be no need to talk about love at first sight or discuss it with that person. It would be a known connection between those two people in that very instant – no further conversation required. In that single look you would be passing along the deep rooted and complex feelings of love – as if you’ve known that person your entire life and can understand everything about them in a single look.
Take the popular move series Twilight for example. The concept of imprinting is nothing more than a love at first sight concept. In the moment you imprint with someone your heart belongs to them, as if you were made for each other.
There are many movies based on lust at first sight as well. These usually entail a sorcerer finding a rare beauty and placing a magical curse on her or locking her in a tower somewhere afar. Lust at first sight stems strictly from the ego and the need to own, have, or possess another individual. In most cases you would profess to give anything to have that person. This is lust not love.
Love at first sight would be a deep mutual respect and understanding for another person. You would not sacrifice anything to be with that person and you would not try to possess or own that person. Love at first sight is not derived from the ego.
For those of you who don’t live in fantasy land, every other loving relationship is established with no vision whatsoever. Every other relationship is established by obtaining a deep understanding of another individual through communication, usually done through voice or writing. It is the exchange and acceptance of harmonic ideology. It is the synchronization of your souls portrayed through touch, smell, sight, taste, and sound. It does not come from sight alone.
It comes from the walks, the talks, and the experiences you share together. It comes from laying under the moon while holding each others hands and talking about your deepest childhood memories. It is a formed bond of trust and security that allows you to tell your partner your wildest dreams and not have them laugh.
It is a level of bonding so great that you can tear down your walls and allow someone into your heart, mind, and soul without concern, without defense, in fact, you welcome them right in.
The Greeks had many ways to define love, two of which can be of use to us right now.
Agape – often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of “true love” rather than the attraction suggested by eros. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God.
Eros – is a passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. Plato refined his own definition where eros is the initial feeling for a person with the possibility that it can develop into an appreciation of beauty within that person. (Hey your beautiful, let’s hump and see if this develops into more, well played Plato)
The Greeks seem to know their shit so I tend to side with them on a lot of philosophy although it appears Plato was horny and seems to have padded Eros, or lust at first sight.
Anyone that tells you they believe in love at first sight is either a romance fiction writer or a hopeless romantic that probably needs to seek psychiatric help. Anyone that tells you that they love you just by seeing you, probably wants to bone you – lust at first sight.
“Anyone that tells you that they love you just by seeing you, probably wants to bone you – lust at first sight.”
I disagree with your article somewhat.
Your definition of ,”lust” is way too Shallow Hal.
True, I have seen some guys date women only because of certain sexual objects on their body(big breasts,butt) & for other certain horny women(meatstick,etc)
That would be lust, and that is wrong.
“…not through just seeing someone or observing someone, that is purely lust….”
But if what you say is true, then how did you fall in love with your girlfriend/wife when you first saw her in your past?
When you looked at her, you must have felt some physically attraction to her right?
Would that not be lust? Thus would that not be wrong?
It is true that people can be attracted to other people and not have a lust, but have a small infatuational interest. And with more observation of how the person acts/talks/behavior, interest can either grow or fade.
Not to mention this can be formed by how they look, their ,”beauty”
For example, in America, we define beauty for a women/man as someone is who fit,clean clothes,etc.
This would turn on some men/woman while someone who is fat & dirty would turn off others.
There are also certain styles of clothing and colors that can represent hidden meanings that could help establish/start an interest.
since they could represent certain things about that person/and there are things that could be somewhat responsible for establishing a connection by familiar colors,styles/whatever.
I just would like to see more elaboration here.