Finally found a definition of "love" im happy with

[Big Thanks]

Not long ago i made a thread titled "Does love exist?" and it was a product of my inability to understand it.
I finally found a definition that brought me peace of mind and i'm pretty happy with it wanted to share it with you guys

---

So...to put it simply, this is how i see it (no friggin trolling, im 100% serious):

There is no such thing as "1 way love" or "1 sided love"
You cant use that word at all.
Because, as i finally see it now, love ALWAYS comes in a package of 2 without exceptions

So ultimately love for me is: "Being desired back by someone you desire"

In my opinion is completely unacceptable, blasphemy and cringe to even dare to speak the word "love" without knowing if is mutual.
It simply doesnt exist at that point.

love is the mutual union of 2 beings...and anything else is illusion...delusion...not it

---

Finally...i can stop wondering about this topic (>_<) CASE CLOSED
Have a nice day

[Local Skinwalker]

so I can love pizza and desire it but because is an inanimate thing with no capability of feeling love and desiring me back....therefore i cant love it?

- - - Updated - - -


also, you have said you have finally found "a" definition you agree with implying numerous other definitions.....but because this is the one you cling to most all other definitions of love are irrelevant?

[PC2]

Not long ago i made a thread titled "Does love exist?" and it was a product of my inability to understand it.
I finally found a definition that brought me peace of mind and i'm pretty happy with it wanted to share it with you guys

---

So...to put it simply, this is how i see it (no friggin trolling, im 100% serious):

There is no such thing as "1 way love" or "1 sided love"
You cant use that word at all.
Because, as i finally see it now, love ALWAYS comes in a package of 2 without exceptions

So ultimately love for me is: "Being desired back by someone you desire"

In my opinion is completely unacceptable, blasphemy and cringe to even dare to speak the word "love" without knowing if is mutual.
It simply doesnt exist at that point.

love is the mutual union of 2 beings...and anything else is illusion...delusion...not it

---

Finally...i can stop wondering about this topic (>_<) CASE CLOSED
Have a nice day

That's only for non-platonic love, right? Platonic love such as a parent's unconditional love for their child can still be legitimately one way(non-mutual) even if the kid doesn't love their parent(s), imo.

[Argenon]

This definition of love falls very flat for me and comes across as more needy and dependent. This is reinforced by your sentiment that it is "blasphemy and cringe to even dare speak the word 'love' without knowing if is mutual." This speaks more to narcissism, co-dependence, and cowardice than love.

The ability to not love someone or something because they don't love you back is absurd. By your definition a parent can't love a child if the child doesn't return their love. Ever heard of the idea of "Love your enemy;" that is impossible with this definition. Not to go into religion, but this would also mean that a creator, god, or supreme being could never love its creation if the creation doesn't love back. Again, this is absurd.

You are also equating love with desire, and those are two different things. They can be connected but mutual desire is not mutual love.

[Shadowferal]

[ - - - Updated - - -

Finally...i can stop wondering about this topic CASE CLOSED Have a nice day

Well...alrighty now. I don't know if it's worth a thread. But I understand when you're feeling happy...you kinda want to share. Congrats?

[Big Thanks]

This definition of love falls very flat for me and comes across as more needy and dependent. This is reinforced by your sentiment that it is "blasphemy and cringe to even dare speak the word 'love' without knowing if is mutual." This speaks more to narcissism, co-dependence, and cowardice than love.

The ability to not love someone or something because they don't love you back is absurd. By your definition a parent can't love a child if the child doesn't return their love. Ever heard of the idea of "Love your enemy;" that is impossible with this definition. Not to go into religion, but this would also mean that a creator, god, or supreme being could never love its creation if the creation doesn't love back. Again, this is absurd.

You are also equating love with desire, and those are two different things. They can be connected but mutual desire is not mutual love.

First things firts, i am ofcourse only talking about "relationship love".
"I love my child" is ofcourse very different from what i'm referring to.

But...how in the hell is my definition "narcissistic" and "needy"?
In fact, the reason why it took me so many years to find this definition was because i was being narcissistic AND it turns out i needed to remove my head from my own ass to find the solution.

My definition is the opposite of narcissistic. Is quite literally the opposite of it.

[Katchii]

First things firts, i am ofcourse only talking about "relationship love".
"I love my child" is ofcourse very different from what i'm referring to.

But...how in the hell is my definition "narcissistic" and "needy"?
In fact, the reason why it took me so many years to find this definition was because i was being narcissistic AND it turns out i needed to remove my head from my own ass to find the solution.

My definition is the opposite of narcissistic. Is quite literally the opposite of it.

Desire is different and is not love, though. Not even close.

[Argenon]

First things firts, i am ofcourse only talking about "relationship love".
"I love my child" is ofcourse very different from what i'm referring to.

But...how in the hell is my definition "narcissistic" and "needy"?
In fact, the reason why it took me so many years to find this definition was because i was being narcissistic AND it turns out i needed to remove my head from my own ass to find the solution.

My definition is the opposite of narcissistic. Is quite literally the opposite of it.

It is narcissistic and needy because you are essentially saying, "I can't love someone unless they love ME," it is centered around the need for the receiving of something from someone else. The feelings you want someone else are to validate your own.

The thing about love is it can be one sided, that is why it hurts when rejection comes because one was invested enough to love. If you can only love when it is returned means that being rejected shouldn't be as painful as it is. Heartbreak is a thing because one person loves and the other does not.

[Big Thanks]

It is narcissistic and needy because you are essentially saying, "I can't love someone unless they love ME," it is centered around the need for the receiving of something from someone else. The feelings you want someone else are to validate your own.

The thing about love is it can be one sided, that is why it hurts when rejection comes because one was invested enough to love. If you can only love when it is returned means that being rejected shouldn't be as painful as it is. Heartbreak is a thing because one person loves and the other does not.

Is just that i always perceived the word "love" as something mystical, incredible and pure.
And it weirds me out when i see someone use it on his own.

When you say, alone, "i love you" what makes you believe you are feeling this superior and mystical form of pure "affection"?
What makes you feel entitled to say it?
How do you even know if is true?

Is it because "i would do anything for you"?
"I feel incredible when im with you"?

What makes someone believe what he/she is experiencing is a "superior" form of affection?
Never made sense to me, and it still doesnt.

Thats why i stick with my definition :S

[Katchii]

Is just that i always perceived the word "love" as something mystical, incredible and pure.
And it weirds me out when i see someone use it on his own.

When you say, alone, "i love you" what makes you believe you are feeling this superior and mystical form of pure "affection"?
What makes you feel entitled to say it?
How do you even know if is true?

What's superior or mystical about love?

It's really not that hard.

Do you genuinely care about that person, their safety and their happiness? Would you do what you're able to for them to keep them or make them happy and safe?

If so, you love them.

There aren't really a lot of different kinds of love, the only difference between romantic love and other kinds is that with romantic love you do romantic things with and for and to that person that you wouldn't for everyone else.

Is it because "i would do anything for you"?
"I feel incredible when im with you"?

Kind of, yes. I'm not understanding the confusion.

What makes someone believe what he/she is experiencing is a "superior" form of affection?

Where do you get this "superior" thing from? What does that have to do with anything?

Never made sense to me, and it still doesnt.

What, exactly, doesn't make sense?

Thats why i stick with my definition :S

As I said before, desire is not the same as love.

[Shadowferal]

I love my parents.
I love my bro.
I love my sis.
I love my children.
But the one I love..and trust will all my intimacy...

Rosco...my dog.
We're having puppies later!

[Progenitor Aquarius]

This is way too complicated. I don’t think I have any ability to love and even if I have that is probably not love but some chemical reaction in my brain. There are things I care about in life though.

[Shadowferal]

I'm a romantic, so sue me;