So someone online asked me about love. What follows is the gigantic response to her simple question.

I’ve never really identified with the concept of love as an completely pervasive and continuous feeling about someone. It never seemed realistic. And I know love isn’t supposed to be rational, but it’s never seemed possible to completely be enthralled with someone all the time. And if that did happen, it seems like that would be more of a symptom of mental instability than of romance.

by littleREDelf

Instead I think of love as a momentary feeling. Something that occurs in reaction to someones actions, words, or memories thereof. They do something and it immediately provokes a strong feeling of lust, affection, or closeness. As a result, you can say you’re “in love” with someone when those moments come often enough that they overwhelm any negative qualities on the whole. It’s a rational and pragmatic approach, but I think it’s valid.

by Let Ideas Compete

The alternative is complete adoration, believing the person is more or less infallible, and I’ve never been comfortable with that. I want a girl to be with me despite my flaws, not because they can’t see them or refuse to acknowledge them. I’m honest person and expect honesty in others, and blind love seems like a form of lying. An unwillingness to acknowledge the truth of each other.

by louisa_catlover

I think the most important thing to me is that my concept allows you to love someone and let them go, that’s important. Just because you can’t make a life with someone doesn’t mean they don’t mean anything to you. So dismissing as a failure every relationship that doesn’t last a lifetime is cynical and archaic. If you can come out of it knowing you’re both better for having been with each other, than it’s win’s all round in my book.

by Zellaby