Let me let you into a little secret. Whoever you are, you did not fall in love at first sight. Stop saying you did, because you didn't. By all means cling on to your pathetic delusions if you must, if it gets you through your life. But for gods' sakes, stop spouting them to the rest of us.
Am I the only person to see what a pathetic pile of crap the notion of “love at first sight” is? Let me be clear that I'm not on about Platonic love. I'm on about the sort of love that is a combination of friendship and sexual attraction, respect - an affinity for all aspects of a person. In other words, the sort of love that people are thinking about when they use the term, ‘love at first sight.’
Are you trying to tell me that you can get all of this information from a person within a few moments of seeing them? Even before you actually meet them? Wow, that's quite a powerful delusion. You must be the sort of person who believes that it's one of the unexplainable miracles of life that God throws at us. Well, that explains a lot.
Let's get back to reality. All you had, in those first few moments of seeing him/her/it/them, was a feeling of lust and (consequently) a drive to get to know them better. That's probably what they felt when they met you as well. Sorry to spoil your romantic mental masturbation here, but you're clearly living a lie. Any evidence that might seem to back your point up is coincidental. It must be. There are only two ways you could possibly love someone on first seeing them: You must either be telepathic, or you must have at least spoken to them beforehand, say on the phone, and decided that you were “in love” at this point instead. Both of them are ridiculous, and the second one is slightly missing the point about what the phrase is supposed to mean.
A common reply to such so-called “sceptics” as myself (I would prefer the term, “rationalist”) is this:
“Aah, you need to experience it, and then you'll know.”
What a brilliant non-answer. Religious people use this ploy to defend against arguments which “offend” their gods. (I’ve always found that one odd: If I were religious, I would try to refrain from believing that my god or gods were weak enough to succumb to vanity.)
Let's just suppose I tell you that I have seen the tooth fairy in my back garden. The sane-minded amongst you might argue that this cannot be, to which I can reply “aah, wait until you see it, then you'll know.” In a way, it's a perfect argument - the arguer cannot battle against that one easily, without waiting in garden until my tooth fairy appears. The response to its inevitable non-appearance is, “well, you haven't waited for long enough.” If, eventually, you believe that you have seen the tooth fairy, then in all probability you were so focused on it that your brain mis-associated it with something else. Imagine all the times you've desperately searched around the house for something you needed urgently. After a while of looking, you get fatigued, and your mind will trick you into thinking that you've seen it in the corner of your eye. You look around and it's not there. I would expect that mirages are a similar experience.
Love at first sight is this unwavering belief, the stubborn, irrational, religious clinging-on of an ideal that you want to believe in, that eventually tricks the mind into thinking it is real. As far as I can see, there are three ways of succumbing to the delusion:
- Introspectively, by deciding from the outset that you want to fall in love at first sight, probably out of sexual or egoistic desperation, or a hyperactive sense of romance. In this case, you are likely to assume that any person you meet who you “fall in love” with was down to that first encounter. Here, “I knew from the start that we were in love” translates as, “I assumed from the start that we would fall in love,” which of course is somewhat different.
- Posthumously, by changing the way you remember first contact in order to suit the retrospective situation. Here, “we were in love from the start” translates as, “I remember that we were in love from the start because that's how I want to remember it.”
- Mistakenly, as one Henry Velez suggests. On first contact, a person fits the stereotype of who they would like to “love.” Later on, if this develops into a loving relationship, they mistakenly and lazily assume that the initial spark must have been love at first sight, because of a lack of alternative explanations that are immediately apparent to them. It is easier to latch onto a well-known idea that is easy to understand (because there is no explanation to understand) than it is to search endlessly for another explanation. Rather than subscribe to the idea that there is no explanation to search for, this sort of person will choose the “love at first sight” explanation because it is both decisive and conforting.
I find this article from RomanceTracker.com particularly engaging, although for unfortunate reasons. I'm particularly interested in the way it tries to justify the supposed existence of love at first sight. Let's take a look at all the points it makes to this effect.
“the concept of Love at First Sight has been lauded in countless stories, plays, books, films and oral traditions. Poets and romantics regard Love at First Sight as an unquestionable truth”
All of these poems, stories, plays, books, films and oral traditions are, no doubt, works of romantic fiction. No wonder they contain concepts as fanciful as love at first sight. Based on this observation, the second sentence almost invites its own answer:
“millions of lonely people around the world pray every day that it will happen to them.”
The fact that millions of people want it to happen doesn't make it real. What’s more, the sentence just derogates a section of society, painting them as pathetic, weak individuals who would cling on to a flimsy and unlikely hope rather than going out and doing something about it. I'm not sure how this goes in their argument's favour.
“So, how do you know if you’ve experienced Love at First Sight? Well, if you have to ask, you probably haven’t.”
Aha! One of those nonsense circularity responses that I was talking about in paragraph 5.
“before you roll your eyes and underestimate the power of romance, be careful [...] Love at First Sight can happen to skeptics [sic], too!”
I had to summon a lot of willpower to avoid using swear-words in response to this patronising, childish, demented tosh. Having failed at proving, or even providing valid evidence as to the existence of love at first sight, which is both the basic and the fatal assumption of the entire article, it then presumes to impose authority over the subject by offering pity to those not self-admitted into the asylum of fantasy.
And that's it! They are all of the points that this great authority on the subject has to offer. It doesn't even attempt to define the word ‘love.’
Look, you can't have it both ways. Either you can own up to the whole package – believing in love at first sight, telepathy, mysticism, astrology, superstition, deism, little people in the garden – or you can drop the charade and admit that you think you fell in love at first sight, simply and only because you want to believe it. Please, open your brain to rational thought, and stop degrading yourself. Frankly, it's painful to have to witness.
- - - - -
Unfortunately, this BBC News Article on the subject seems to lose track of the “at first sight” bit, which is quite pivotal really. Or perhaps it's just BBC News making up any old headline to grab attention, gutter-press style – it is BBC News, after all.
This Guardian article makes the same overall point as me. I would be surprised if it is “new research,” as the article claims, though – not only have I (and, no doubt, many other rationalists) found it patently obvious for a very long time, but philosophers must have been spouting similar for centuries.
