Discussion True love does not exist.

[migimortis]

All love is conditional. Who are you? What did you say, how do you look, do you have a career, what do you own, what race, gender, ethnicity are you, how amusing are you, do you fulfill emotional needs. Even our own family treat us conditionally, the first condition being, we are family. Many parents disown their own kids because they fail to meet the conditions (career expectations, dating preferences for example) necessary to be loved. This means if love is conditional, it is not we who are loved per se, but our ability to meet certain expectations/conditions that is loved. Therefore it is not truly us that is being loved, but the fulfillment of conditions that is being loved. If a person fails to meet the conditions necessary to be loved, the love maybe withdrawn. For example a person who is loved for their youth, being dumped or cheated on because they grew old and lost their youth (the condition for love) and the person they were dating no longer loved them the way they used to. The superstar celebrity who has a scandal and no longer receives the love they once did. Even the ex friend who supported the "wrong" political party/candidate. All love is conditional, no matter how much a person may try to deny it to themselves. Without the fulfillment of conditions, love will be withdrawn. It is only the fulfillment of conditions that is ever loved, never the person themselves, as we ourselves are beyond the conditions/criteria we meet.

True love is unconditional love as love being unconditional is what ensures love once given cannot be withdrawn. That is what makes it truly true, because truth is consistency regardless of change. Unconditional love does not exist, at least not for a person, as conditions are a prerequisite for distinguishing between persons. How do you know who you love more without conditions/criteria to tell you? You love person A over person B because person A fulfills a set of conditions that person B doesn't. This is conditional love. Unconditional love, the opposite, therefore does not have a target but is universal. True love exists not as love per se, but more so as the joy experienced within an individual due to the unconditional love of life itself, way beyond the discrimination inherent in human relationships. Much like the light of the sun radiates in all directions, true love is really just joy, without any conditions, free from discrimination, providing warmth (love/light) to everything it reaches into contact with. It's for this reason that true love cannot be found in relationships, but only within oneself.

True love does not exist. Only joy.

 

[Downdraft]

IMO, conditional love is true and that's the good part of it. If you loved someone for the hell of it, it would mean nothing. That person would be replaceable and of little value. If I love someone it's because who they are and because they have something only them do. That's what makes it special. It's a two person choice and there will love will never be withdrawn if none of them want to. True love can be both conditional and permanent.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I believe that unconditional love doesn't exist and that unconditional love is such a bs concept. However, why would unconditional love be true love and not any other forms of love? Yes, you talk about consistency but couldn't consistency be found in conditional love too? I think that true love is conditional love yet also secure love in where two people will keep on loving each other and always be there for one another

 

[anagram]

Most love is carnal love that's corrupted by humans but I believe there's a more abstract love from what I've read in NDE reports etc

 

[Forever Sleep]

That can be a good thing... Imagine loving someone despite the fact they came home after work everyday and beat the shit out of you. Are they still deserving of your 'love'? If we loved unconditionally, we'd sometimes be in a lot of trouble... So- do people who stay in abusive relationships love unconditionally? Is that a good thing?

Love isn't just about giving I suppose. It's also about hoping that person won't leave. Yet sometimes- for the safety and well being of that person- it would be better if they did!

So yes- most relationships aren't exactly unconditional but, maybe that isn't always a bad thing. Of course- you're right though- in terms of- it's sad when people are rejected for not complying to some stringent criteria.

 

[Slow_Farewell]

True Unconditional Love exists but it's always one way.

 

[DarkRange55]

Three truths of all relationships

1. Temporary
2. Conditional
3. Transactional

Number one temporary. At the end of the day, every single relationship someone is going to die. As Buddha said life is temporary and transient. The life within this physical body is temporary and transient. No relationship lasts forever. Its your choice whether you want to bet big on a particular relationship. Really the crux of it is based around the fact that relationships are temporary. Not saying you can't have a great relationship for the rest of your life but it ends when one of you dies. Knowing that, is gonna allow you to avoid so much frustration, so much anxiety because a lot of those emotions come from unmanaged expectations.

Quality relationship is based conditions mutual respect, love all these things. The more someone likes or dislikes you is based on certain conditions. That could be your behavior, it could how that person's feeling at the time, it could be the situation that in you're in together like having a fews on the beach with your friends thats a good condition to be having a great time which means your affinity for those people in gonna be higher in that moment. Compared to when you're waking up tired the next morning with a bit of a hangover. Its also based on how people are feeling within their lives, their health. A number of different factors. Every relationship is 100% conditional. So you're always moving through different conditions, not just in life but in all relationships. Again, same motivation with the temporary nature of relationships is to not rest on the heels of anything. If you value a relationship its something to be nurtured, something to be maintained, something to be worked on. If you feel distance growing with someone, its up to you to create those better conditions. Not to wait for someone else to create those conditions.

Relationships are transactional. Transactional is an ugly word. People think a lot of times about money. Business relationships are for sure about money. But a lot of marriages, a lot of boyfriend/girlfriend they're not solely about money. But she's not gonna be with you if you're homeless. And she's always probably not gonna be with you if you're a janitor. Especially if she's attractive because she'd want a higher quality of life. Its not solely transactional. It does not mean she's a gold digger. But you're money certainty makes you more attractive because you're able to give her a better life which creates better conditions for that relationship. But its not just a financial transaction. Everything is transactional. You're always transacting some kind of emotion. Nobody is a relationship for no reason. They're in a relationship because they're getting something out of it. They're getting sex, affection, money, love, humor, warmth. Everything is some kind of a transaction. Both of you are spending your time with each other because both of you are getting something out of it. Down to talking to the check out girl. You are exchanging pleasantries, you're being charming. And she responds in kind. And you have elevated each other's states. And so its been a positive interaction. And so thats what I mean by transactional. Its not just purely in a financial sense. Every moment of a relationship you are going back and forth transacting something, communicating. If that continues to generally be positive then it will most likely be a positive relationship. But its constantly in flux. If people are constantly getting what they want out of it, they are gonna leave less. All behavior is transactional.

 

[jello]

I believe you can love people unconditionally. Practicing Metta has helped me foster more love for those around me.

 

[migimortis]

IMO, conditional love is true and that's the good part of it. If you loved someone for the hell of it, it would mean nothing. That person would be replaceable and of little value. If I love someone it's because who they are and because they have something only them do. That's what makes it special. It's a two person choice and there will love will never be withdrawn if none of them want to. True love can be both conditional and permanent.

You love their ability to fulfill conditions you believe are worthy of loving. People are greater than the conditions they are loved for. So you don't actually love them, you love their ability to fulfill conditions for love. Give me an example of conditional love that cannot be withdrawn. You can't because the very fact that it is conditional means the withdrawing of love is a possibility. There fore the love is not "true" as you claim as if you had "true" love for an individual, you would love that individual irrespective of whether or not they fulfill the conditions for being loved. Conditional love is therefore, not true love.

I believe that unconditional love doesn't exist and that unconditional love is such a bs concept. However, why would unconditional love be true love and not any other forms of love? Yes, you talk about consistency but couldn't consistency be found in conditional love too? I think that true love is conditional love yet also secure love in where two people will keep on loving each other and always be there for one another

The reason conditional love is not true love, is because conditional love is not love that is truly consistent. If conditions are not met, love will not be given. Therefore, conditional love is not consistent and therefore, not "true" love. "True" love is love that is consistent irrespective of change. Conditional love is withdrawn because of change. If you truly love a person, you will love them irrespective of what change they go through, as that is love that is consistent enough to be called truly "true".

That can be a good thing... Imagine loving someone despite the fact they came home after work everyday and beat the shit out of you. Are they still deserving of your 'love'? If we loved unconditionally, we'd sometimes be in a lot of trouble... So- do people who stay in abusive relationships love unconditionally? Is that a good thing?

Love isn't just about giving I suppose. It's also about hoping that person won't leave. Yet sometimes- for the safety and well being of that person- it would be better if they did!

So yes- most relationships aren't exactly unconditional but, maybe that isn't always a bad thing. Of course- you're right though- in terms of- it's sad when people are rejected for not complying to some stringent criteria.

Absolutely. I agree. Conditional love is a matter of self preservation and appreciation for life. I've simply come to the conclusion that having a sober mind about "love" is essential to preventing suffering. Why place all of your happiness on something inherently conditional? You don't have to be a Christian to understand what Jesus meant when he said "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25​The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26​But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27​The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.". Basing happiness on the rock (what is true/consistent) is essential to being happy.

I believe you can love people unconditionally. Practicing Metta has helped me foster more love for those around me.

I agree, but not romantically. Loving-kindness has no direction, it is towards all people, which is essentially the same as the analogy I made: "Much like the light of the sun radiates in all directions, true love is really just joy, without any conditions, free from discrimination, providing warmth (love/light) to everything it reaches into contact with. It's for this reason that true love cannot be found in relationships, but only within oneself." By relationships I mainly meant romantic, but it also applies to platonic. The only way to have unconditional love is to let go of conditions to love, which is what loving-kindness teaches, but because of the lack of conditions, there is no target, it (love) applies to everyone universally and equally.

 

[Downdraft]

You love their ability to fulfill conditions you believe are worthy of loving. People are greater than the conditions they are loved for. So you don't actually love them, you love their ability to fulfill conditions for love.

I like the whole person for who they are and their conditions are part of it. I love them because I also accept the parts I don't like.

Give me an example of conditional love that cannot be withdrawn.

If conditions go fulfilled then it won't be withdrawn. Sure, one thing if it can be, but it doesn't matter if it won't happen. It's practically true.

 

[migimortis]

I like the whole person for who they are and their conditions are part of it. I love them because I also accept the parts I don't like.

If conditions go fulfilled then it won't be withdrawn. Sure, one thing if it can be, but it doesn't matter if it won't happen. It's practically true.

The first sentence is (logically speaking) objectively wrong. You can't "like the whole person" if you simultaneously admit there are parts of the person you "don't like". Admitting there are parts you "don't like" is an admission that you don't "like the whole person". Also you don't "love them", because their identity is not bound to the conditions in which you love them. Hence I said "we ourselves are beyond the conditions/criteria we meet.".

As for the 2nd sentence, I disagree. It's like saying "you can take as many drugs as you like it doesn't matter if you will never overdose" or "you can have as much unprotected sex as you like, it doesn't matter if you won't get any STD's". It's basically a denial of reality until reality hits you like a wrecking ball and demolishes any false sense of security that was cultivated through denial. And even then, it's not practically true anyway, because people get dumped all the time, specifically because they failed to meet conditions. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen.

 

[F@#$]

Love is a lie.

 

[Downdraft]

The first sentence is (logically speaking) objectively wrong. You can't "like the whole person" if you simultaneously admit there are parts of the person you "don't like". Admitting there are parts you "don't like" is an admission that you don't "like the whole person".

I disagree. If that was impossible, I wouldn't love the whole person. There are a lot of cases of people which bravery, dedication... I like, but I find insufferable. On the other hand, I've known people who are far from perfect but when putting their traits together, I still like them. I am loving more than just separate traits or I would give similar treatment to everyone based on what traits I like. I think the fact someone can be imperfect and like them for more than one sole thing proves it. In fact, when loving someone the brain tends to ignore said things more. It's part of it. That aside, when I say someone I like has a defect it's more on their end. It doesn't usually affect me, but maybe they are anxious. I don't like that for them, not me, that doesn't prevent me from liking them as they are.

Also you don't "love them", because their identity is not bound to the conditions in which you love them. Hence I said "we ourselves are beyond the conditions/criteria we meet.".

Actions are made by people. Mental traits and psychology are all in the brain. Physical traits are in the body that brain depends on. No matter how you want to see it, people are a collection of traits and actions.

As for the 2nd sentence, I disagree. It's like saying "you can take as many drugs as you like it doesn't matter if you will never overdose" or "you can have as much unprotected sex as you like, it doesn't matter if you won't get any STD's". It's basically a denial of reality until reality hits you like a wrecking ball and demolishes any false sense of security that was cultivated through denial. And even then, it's not practically true anyway, because people get dumped all the time, specifically because they failed to meet conditions. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen.

The first example, drugs, still have bad effects on your health, and the second one, unprotected sex, has risk of pregnancy, although it's more viable if we use the better scenario. You still shouldn't do it though, as it's harder to protect against it that plan a good relationship. Assuming a relationship goes right, I fail to compare them. Also, note that I was talking about a specific case: when it goes right. I am not denying things can go wrong, of course, I was saying when things go right and people don't break, true and conditional love are indistinguishable. That's what I mean with "perfect on practice"

If you loved someone for the hell of it, it would mean nothing. That person would be replaceable and of little value. If I love someone it's because who they are and because they have something only them do. That's what makes it special.

I also want to appeal to this argument: even if this love isn't true, it still has more meaning.

Edit. It's possible to like and dislike the same thing. People has split feelings all the time or can be unsure of their feelings. On extreme cases, people have been attracted to violent traits or things they consider bad, but they still love the person behind for those traits they dislike.

 

[Meteora]

Unconditional love should exist for all children. The world would be so much better if it did.
For adults it does not exist in my opinion. We are beings with needs and expectations and the partner is not there to fullfill our wishes. If it fits, it fits. If one partner has to make a much bigger effort to please the other.... that is not good, I guess.

 

[migimortis]

I disagree. If that was impossible, I wouldn't love the whole person. There are a lot of cases of people which bravery, dedication... I like, but I find insufferable. On the other hand, I've known people who are far from perfect but when putting their traits together, I still like them. I am loving more than just separate traits or I would give similar treatment to everyone based on what traits I like. I think the fact someone can be imperfect and like them for more than one sole thing proves it. In fact, when loving someone the brain tends to ignore said things more. It's part of it. That aside, when I say someone I like has a defect it's more on their end. It doesn't usually affect me, but maybe they are anxious. I don't like that for them, not me, that doesn't prevent me from liking them as they are.

Actions are made by people. Mental traits and psychology are all in the brain. Physical traits are in the body that brain depends on. No matter how you want to see it, people are a collection of traits and actions.

The first example, drugs, still have bad effects on your health, and the second one, unprotected sex, has risk of pregnancy, although it's more viable if we use the better scenario. You still shouldn't do it though, as it's harder to protect against it that plan a good relationship. Assuming a relationship goes right, I fail to compare them. Also, note that I was talking about a specific case: when it goes right. I am not denying things can go wrong, of course, I was saying when things go right and people don't break, true and conditional love are indistinguishable. That's what I mean with "perfect on practice"



I also want to appeal to this argument: even if this love isn't true, it still has more meaning.

Edit. It's possible to like and dislike the same thing. People has split feelings all the time or can be unsure of their feelings. On extreme cases, people have been attracted to violent traits or things they consider bad, but they still love the person behind for those traits they dislike.

1. You don't love the whole person. You admitted there are things you "don't like". That is not loving the "whole" person. You love aspects of the person, but dislike other aspects. If the aspects of the person you loved disappeared, you wouldn't love them anymore, proving that you clearly do "not" love the "whole person".

2.Loving someone who you believe has bad traits, means you value their positive traits so much that you are willing to accept the negative ones. It's bargaining. You view the presence of the positives as having more importance than the presence of the negatives. That's it. A person accepting the negative doesn't mean anything, even more so because of point 1.

3.You wouldn't give people the same treatment just because they share similar traits, because they are not the same person. Many people do give similar treatment based on traits they like however, for example, simps/orbiters who shower women with praise, simply on the basis that they are female. So this point can be contested either way, but I ultimately believe you won't treat someone identically to another because they are not the same person. Not to mention, as you say, some people may have traits you dislike too, meaning even if another person has traits you like, you may also not treat them the same because of a prevalence of negative traits.

4.It is true that people "in love" tend to ignore negatives more. In fact, this is an argument you could make for true/unconditional love, as this state, commonly called "infatuation" is known for being devoid of negative judgements that would cause someone to withdraw their love. But there are 2 problems with infatuation. Firstly it is nothing more that idealization, meaning that a person is not actually in love with the person as they actually are, but is actually in love with an idea. Secondly, because of the first reason, infatuation is short lived, as people eventually realize their idealization was not reality. So ultimately, infatuation is not true love either. Everyone has a comedown eventually.

5.If things going right means that true and unconditional love are indistinguishable, then what about the pressures that people put on their partners to conform to a set of criteria that a partner finds more attractive? People pressure their partners into all kinds of behaviours in order to meet conditions that they consider more loveworthy. Even if 2 people don't seperate, I'd hardly call it indistinguishable from unconditional love. As someone mentioned earlier above, having conditions is essential for self preservation too. It's by having conditions that an individual is able to reject behaviors that are harmful to their own wellbeing, rejecting aspects of a partner is not the same as unconditional love.

6.Conditional love can still have meaning yes, because anything has as much meaning as you believe it to. I don't oppose people having relationships, in case that's how my post sounded.

7.Yes people can like and dislike the same thing. When it comes to romantic love even, people can hate their partner but still want to go back. Whether a person remains with an individual is still up to them ultimately however. Meaning that ultimately, judgements made by the individual determine whether they should still offer their love to the individual.

There are only 2 exceptions I can see to what I've said.

1.Following on from point 7, love can have a subconsious element that an individual may not be consciously aware of. Meaning the individual doesn't consciously control their actions/feelings in regards to how they feel about an individual. This doesn't change the fact that love is conditional, but it does mean that even when conditions are not met by a previous partner, an individual may still experience love for someone despite them no longer being "attractive" due to the previous emotional baggage/history with the partner.

2.Following on from this point, and this is the strongest counterargument I can think of against what I've said: When a person swares loyalty to an individual. Some people take their vows seriously. In these rare instances, the love is unconditional because they are comitted regardless of what changes occur "till death do us apart". In these instances there is unconditional love, but even marriages can (and do) breakdown.

 

[Downdraft]

1. You don't love the whole person. You admitted there are things you "don't like". That is not loving the "whole" person. You love aspects of the person, but dislike other aspects. If the aspects of the person you loved disappeared, you wouldn't love them anymore, proving that you clearly do "not" love the "whole person".

If I get it, disliking part of it means some lack of love to the whole. This would imply liking and not are mutually exclusive.

7.Yes people can like and dislike the same thing. When it comes to romantic love even, people can hate their partner but still want to go back. Whether a person remains with an individual is still up to them ultimately however. Meaning that ultimately, judgements made by the individual determine whether they should still offer their love to the individual.

However, here you say both can happen, which is true. But how does point 1 hold then?

2.Loving someone who you believe has bad traits, means you value their positive traits so much that you are willing to accept the negative ones. It's bargaining. You view the presence of the positives as having more importance than the presence of the negatives. That's it. A person accepting the negative doesn't mean anything, even more so because of point 1.

Same as above.

3.You wouldn't give people the same treatment just because they share similar traits, because they are not the same person. Many people do give similar treatment based on traits they like however, for example, simps/orbiters who shower women with praise, simply on the basis that they are female. So this point can be contested either way, but I ultimately believe you won't treat someone identically to another because they are not the same person. Not to mention, as you say, some people may have traits you dislike too, meaning even if another person has traits you like, you may also not treat them the same because of a prevalence of negative traits.

Mostly true, but as you say it can go both ways: if two equal persons receive different love, there must be something about the whole that makes it special. Else, math doesn't add up: if the traits are the same and the result varies, there must be something else.

4.It is true that people "in love" tend to ignore negatives more. In fact, this is an argument you could make for true/unconditional love, as this state, commonly called "infatuation" is known for being devoid of negative judgements that would cause someone to withdraw their love. But there are 2 problems with infatuation. Firstly it is nothing more that idealization, meaning that a person is not actually in love with the person as they actually are, but is actually in love with an idea. Secondly, because of the first reason, infatuation is short lived, as people eventually realize their idealization was not reality. So ultimately, infatuation is not true love either. Everyone has a comedown eventually.

Not all ends in idealization. There is people mature enough to understand what they like isn't healthy.

5.If things going right means that true and unconditional love are indistinguishable, then what about the pressures that people put on their partners to conform to a set of criteria that a partner finds more attractive? People pressure their partners into all kinds of behaviours in order to meet conditions that they consider more loveworthy.

If things go right, this pressure isn't present. Else it's not going right.

Even if 2 people don't seperate, I'd hardly call it indistinguishable from unconditional love. As someone mentioned earlier above, having conditions is essential for self preservation too. It's by having conditions that an individual is able to reject behaviors that are harmful to their own wellbeing, rejecting aspects of a partner is not the same as unconditional love.

Now, there is no perfect relationship, but there are still good enough ones when there is still no risk of separation or significant mutual harm (like pressure).

 

[DarkRange55]

Is unconditional love = true love?

 

[Bianka]

How would you define "true love"? It seems like you mean unconditional. I don't think that's right. Unconditional love is meaningless.

 

[jello]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but I don't see why true love is defined as something that is unconditional and nonexistent in romantic relationships. Originally, you said that love was conditional in all relationships but then you specified it was only for romantic relationships.

1. You don't love the whole person. You admitted there are things you "don't like". That is not loving the "whole" person. You love aspects of the person, but dislike other aspects. If the aspects of the person you loved disappeared, you wouldn't love them anymore, proving that you clearly do "not" love the "whole person".

Loving someone and liking them are two different things. You can love entirely but still be aware of their flaws. A lot of people bond with their partner over time; the familiarity, memories, and attachment seem to keep them together even if they become different people.

Unconditional love is meaningless

I disagree with this. Unconditional love toward everyone has many psychological benefits for you. Being loving and kind toward people unconditionally, has had a positive affect on people's lives. This is a further extrapolation, but it can also change how the systems in society work.

 

[DarkRange55]

"The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for." - Bob Marley

 

[sserafim]

Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain, it's not real.

 

[Bianka]

I disagree with this. Unconditional love toward everyone has many psychological benefits for you. Being loving and kind toward people unconditionally, has had a positive affect on people's lives. This is a further extrapolation, but it can also change how the systems in society work.

Maybe psychologically it has some benefits. But morally? Love has to be deserved otherwise it loses any value it had

 

[SexyIncél]

I think that love's an ideal — exists in the mind — and the external world only has approximations to ideals. (For example, no one's ever actually seen a straight line. Look closely enough, it's jagged)

But I've observed good approximations to true love, yes

Unconditionality is a further constraint. We can list its pluses & minuses. And ways to hack it: if someone conditionally loves you for "being yourself", you can increase that love by being "more yourself". Could have the benefits of being unconditional, at the negligible cost of losing some freedom to be anti-yourself. Plus, you feel proud for being particularly lovable

 

[DarkRange55]

Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain, it's not real.

I don't think detracts from it. I still enjoy pleasure and I still admire beauty like a sunset even though it's just radio-waves and electromagnetic radiation. How does that make it not "real?" Because its not ethereal?

 

[Life_and_Death]

just because you havent experienced it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
its just extremely extremely rare in this self servient world

 

[slightoverlooked]

my therapist told me unconditional love exists. its just very very rare.

 

[R_N]

I think it exists but it is mostly reserved for offspring and children in particular. Some parents would die for them and put them above everyone else, including themselves. It serves biological purpose tho. I think there are more such cases but in general I would agree that most relations are shallow and with obvious conditions such us beauty/status/wealth.

 

[RemainingDubious]

All love is conditional.

i used think that was true until about a decade later when i finally experienced true love. my love wasn't conditional.

True love is unconditional love as love being unconditional is what ensures love once given cannot be withdrawn. That is what makes it truly true, because truth is consistency regardless of change.

That is correct.

Unconditional love does not exist, at least not for a person, as conditions are a prerequisite for distinguishing between persons. How do you know who you love more without conditions/criteria to tell you? You love person A over person B because person A fulfills a set of conditions that person B doesn't. This is conditional love. Unconditional love, the opposite, therefore does not have a target but is universal. True love exists not as love per se, but more so as the joy experienced within an individual due to the unconditional love of life itself, way beyond the discrimination inherent in human relationships. Much like the light of the sun radiates in all directions, true love is really just joy, without any conditions, free from discrimination, providing warmth (love/light) to everything it reaches into contact with. It's for this reason that true love cannot be found in relationships, but only within oneself.

True love does not exist. Only joy.

Now that's where you're completely wrong. Since love is selfless. It is not selfish. It doesn't seek for anything. It doesn't have to be acknowledged, reciprocated, wanted or even noticed.
Love is about what you can give not what you can receive.

Love doesn't have to bring the giver joys that's some selfish shit. There can't be any pride or ego in true love. All that childish shit needs to be put away.

When you love someone (truly love) that person is more important than you. Their wants, needs, feelings matter more than yourself ever has or ever will again.

It's what's best for them even when that may be what's the worst for you. You could be content suffering if it's what makes them happy.

1 Corinthians 13 (One of the very few decent parts in the entire bible) gives a pretty good summary of true love.

i highly recommend reading that or better yet watch Love Exposure. It's probably the most fucked up movie i've ever seen but it's quite beautiful too



i highly recommend Death: The High Cost Of Living. it's my favourite graphic novel of all time. Death's awesome.