abstinent = obstinant

@Mines: So, those researchers would have had to define people in love, for six months, by some method not involving brain scans. Based on what? Self-reporting? And then how is showing a picture of the loved one proving that the brain state that develops is one showing love? It doesn't. The whole idea of looking at brain scans to prove something like love exists is idiotic. I have no doubt that neuro"scientists" brag about this work, but a moment's hesitation, among the part of anyone using a bit of wisdom, should cause one to laugh at the effort. Neuroscience is still in the dark ages.

I'm sorry you are unable to read and understand what i was writing. i had hoped by C&P a few articles you would tkat the time to look into it since you seem so concerned about it. several pages back i explained my self quite clearly and since then you have added qualifiers of your own. i understand what you are talking about, the difference between love of your child to love of your spouse, i understand you cannot love all the time and sometimes that love can be constantly maintained. but for the purpose of a test the isolate these things. the articles explain this and how they test for different types and identify them then reproduce them. if you just want to remain abstinent and ignorant, that is not my fault at this point.

@Mines: You haven't even defined what "love" is, so how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim it has been "scientifically proven"? You cannot prove what you cannot define. And I never watch YT vids as a matter of debating someone. IF you have a point to make, then make it. Telling me to watch a vid is just laziness on your part.

here is also a TED talk about the subject.

Daily TED Talk -- Helen Fisher on the Brain and Love

please remember this is not me saying these things so take your issues with the studies to the people who made the studies.

Biological basis of love is a Wiki article that describe some of what i'm talking about.

OA: if you would like more detailed information further explaining the point i was trying to make just let me know.

the below taken from science mag website, C&P part of this into google for the full article.

The team also rounded up 17 people of both sexes, aged 40 to 65, married at least 20 years, who said they were still "in love" with their spouses. The researchers found that the same areas were activated in most of them on viewing a photo of their spouse. But longterm romantic love also stirred up brainstem regions rich in serotonin (see pic) and a chemical called vasopressin, which is associated with monogamy in voles. The upshot is that the long-marrieds have the best of both worlds--they are still in love, but the "the obsession, mania and anxiety" of newly-hatched infatuation "is replaced by calm," said Fisher.
"We now have physiological evidence that romantic love can last," said Fisher triumphantly. "It now appears from this study that romantic love exists not only to initiatie pair-bonding but to maintain and enhance long-term relationships."

--Constance Holden

The Neurological Basis of True Love
They say "romantic love" was invented by the troubadors of the Middle Ages. They also say it doesn't last. But Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher and colleagues reported today that functional brain imaging studies show that being "in love" transcends both culture and time.

The researchers imaged the brains of 17 young Americans and 17 young Chinese who had been in intense love relationships for 6 months. The team compared how the volunteers' brains reacted to a photograph of a loved one versus a photo of someone they didn't know. When viewing a loved one, the brains of the volunteers registered activity in "several regions associated with addiction," said Fisher--notably in the ventral tegmental area, a region of the brain stem that are rich in receptors for dopamine, the chief actor in the brain's "reward circuit".

C&P the headline of the below article for the full paper. more to come.