<p>What's your definition of love? And not in the context of I love Nutella lol - love for an actual person</p>
<p>A friend told me that his definition is that you're willing to give your life for the other person. That made me think. If that is true, then who do I really love? </p>
<p>Dizcuzz</p>
<p>I personally believe that love is a false emotion, actually controlled by sexual drive. Why? Well, you answer me first, why is it that you are able to be only friends with males, but only engage in a romantic/sexual relationship with a female? Because you’re sexually driven towards a female, not towards a male. In reverse, why are homosexual males attracted to others of the same orientation, but find romantic relationship with females unsatisfying?</p>
<p>All in all, love is an emotion that is primarily driven by sexual drive, at least in the early stages of ‘love.’</p>
<p>[Haddaway</a> - What is love - YouTube](<a href=“Haddaway - What is love - YouTube”>Haddaway - What is love - YouTube)</p>
<p>There truly is no definition per se. If you think you’re in love, you are in love. Why? because nothing anyone says can change your mind if you think you’re in love. The amount of “connection” people feel before they say they are in love varies so there’s no measurable absolute of what love is. However your friend is right in a sense. The highest order of love is a state when one would be willing to unselfishly sacrifice for another. Feelings such as love are illusory as in they stem purely from the mind/ not substantial. As in one instance has the ability to turn intense passion into detest. So those feelings should be taken with a grain of salt. I guess “true” love stands the test of time.</p>
<p>@octo haha I was just about to post the lyrics to that here</p>
<p>
It is possible that we reserve “love” (or let’s say “romance”) for those to whom we are sexually attracted, but it is also possible that we, as an at least outwardly monogamous species, reserve (or limit) our sexual attraction for those whom we “love.”</p>
<p>Parents/offspring are also thought to “love” each other. I don’t think that strictly defining love as romance works in this case, but this does generally preclude an inextricable relationship between sexual attraction and “love.”</p>
<p>A chemical imbalance.</p>
<p>I kid, I kid.</p>
<p>
Familiarize yourself with the concept of romantic attraction. There are people who identify as biromantic but heterosexual, people who are heteroromantic but asexual, people who are aromantic but polysexual. The list goes on. We also have those whose sexuality is fluid and those who wish not to label themselves.</p>
<p>It’d be all too easy if we were all monogamous, binary beings interested in having a romantic and sexual relationship with one person, but how boring would that be? I rather like living in such a complex world. I care little for finding the meaning of life when I can live instead.</p>
<p>^Sorry for creepin’ but I love you xD</p>
<p>There’s also agape, or complete/total/divine Love (please note the capital). Agape in the Christian tradition is seen in Jesus’ Sacrifice for man. Along the same definition the OP presented, he gave up his life in order to save all of our souls. But agape doesn’t have to lead to death: in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Sonia and Raskolnikov shared agape love, or at least for a moment. They were able to see each other as the bitterly lonely human beings they were, not as a dirty prostitute and a parasitic murderer. They just wanted love T-T</p>