[dkv (OP)]

addictive in what sense.If the answer is behavioural then I can be addictive towards my boss.
But that may or may not gurantee pleasure. And the relationship has no meaning other than defined by law. This addiction can not be called love.
However the general interest in money may be cause of addiction. Money might be of interest for reasons found at home.  Money is not earned to create heaven. Money is used to create sustainble pleasure.
Greater the money more partners you can sustain.

Addictiveness to certain abstract concepts which actually manifest due to pleasure can lead to pelasure. Addictiveness with respect to abstract is not real and can not be called a biological idea but a matter of strategy.If it is a strategy then it is part of Towards Sustainable Pleasure picture.

Behavioural addictiveness is not love. Emotional addictiveness which works towards pleasure is .

[another_someone]

addictive in what sense.If the answer is behavioural then I can be addictive towards my boss.

Addiction is a behavioural trait (even if it is chemically mediated).

I am not sure what you mean by being addicted to your boss (unless you are saying you are in love with, or obsessed by, him/her)?
 

But that may or may not gurantee pleasure.

There is never a guarantee of anything - but the question rather is whether there is a promise of positive emotional reward (whether you regard that as pleasure, or some other emotional reward is up to you).

And the relationship has no meaning other than defined by law.

If your relationship with your boss is merely that defined by law, then I would scarcely call it an addiction.

This addiction can not be called love.

What do you mean by this addiction?  I am not at all sure that the relationship you are speaking of is one I would even call an addiction.

However the general interest in money may be cause of addiction. Money might be of interest for reasons found at home.  Money is not earned to create heaven. Money is used to create sustainble pleasure.
Greater the money more partners you can sustain.

It may surprise you to learn that there are people who do not actively seek sexual partners, and would use what money they have for other pleasures.

[dkv (OP)]

It may surprise you to learn that there are people who do not actively seek sexual partners, and would use what money they have for other pleasures.

The term addiction is a wrong word.It indicates abnormally strong cravings for something or somebody.
This can not be the definition of love.
In love sometimes lover leaves his or her love.
MONEY is an derived object to which we associate pleasure becuase it leads to sustainable pleasure.
The sexual pleasure is the supreme but there are other forms of pleasure as well. I have already discussed this. I am not surprised.

[another_someone]

The term addiction is a wrong word.It indicates abnormally strong cravings for something or somebody.
This can not be the definition of love.

Concepts of normality are relative, and often subjective.

Regarding love simply as being a strong craving (without reference to whether you regard it as normal or not) would seem to me to be an adequate description of love.

In love sometimes lover leaves his or her love.

And addicts sometimes overcome their addiction.

The most common reasons for a lover to leave his love is either because they realise the relationship is becoming dangerous to them (the same reason why addicts sometimes give up their addiction), or because they have found a new love (in other words, a new addiction has supplanted an old addiction).

But then, we also know that some people are more resistant to addiction than others, and those who are more resistant may well also be more easily able to reject their lovers.

The sexual pleasure is the supreme but there are other forms of pleasure as well.

But, as I said, there are people who will voluntarily abstain from sexual pleasure - so please explain that in your theory.  Does that not imply that for them sexual pleasure is by no means supreme.

[nith2k6]

Can anyone tell how or what is the taste of sweet, sour,... and/or what the smell of a flower like or what the pain will be like? I guess Never. One have to feel it, realize deep inside the mind, the brain. If you have no taste buds, you can't taste anything. Likewise, if one has no sensory organs, he/she never loves any one, its just a dead body. Love is not only meant for sex but also for friends, parents, relatives, plants, animals. It's just a desire. If I like sweet taste, my brain signals me to taste it. Its a need that we named as LOVE. 

[MayoFlyFarmer]

.....baby don't hurt me


no more.....

[Make it Lady]

Love creeps up your back and knocks your hat off.

No seriously, love and attraction is all about finding a genetically perfect partner to have good strong children with. It is a primevil urge to continue genetically so having strong offspring is important. Love is your brains way of telling you that you have found someone that would be a good match. Natural endorphins are released when you see them. I had the love at first sight experience with my husband. I also think we choose people that remind us of our parents or are opposite to us. This topic is far to important to be placed in chat. It is multidisciplined.