MH FEATURED POLL #31: Do you believe in (romantic) love?

[diamondAss 114]

i personally believe romance and love are rather different subjects. romance to me, is the definition (mask) love has received through people describing the emotions hormones has given them in artsy way. it exists in a shallow way - people trying to re-create the commercial image. love itself still stays as a hormonal overflow to me though. after that is done, all there is is simply habit

hence, romance=commercial, love=hormones

(although thinking of both yet feels pleasant)

[emmny 4139]

being in love is so against my aesthetic but i totally love (lol) the idea  ^^

[Furik 832]

I do not.

I read an article yesterday about how the newer generation of youth do not even know what love is. The 80s and 90s babies have been brainwashed, so to say, with what love even is. The media's portrayal of love has obviously been poured into a seismic swamp. The Snapchat children send dick pics thinking that'll attract someone to bang. That's not love.

I've hand a handful of meaningful long relationships that have lasted more than a year at a time but the constant dread of being cheated on (or me cheating on them) ultimately take tolls.

No one has security and trust anymore and I ultimately cannot believe in true love. Not in this day and age anymore.

[Ito 2438]

I think not believe it either means you are dead inside or you have had your heart stomped on a little too hard and are in denial.

[saishuu 3220]

I believe it exists and, from recent personal experience, think it's actually kinda awesome.

[Lestat 2167]

Do I personally believe in romantic love? No. But this is because I have never romantically loved someone, and feel as if I am aromantic toward other people. I have had boyfriends but I have never loved them or felt a connection to them because eventually they ended up feeling more like a liability than someone I could share my feelings and thoughts with. I do not enjoy the thought of being with someone, romantically or sexually, and I can not stand flirting and dislike it when someone shows an interest in me in this way.

 

It could easily exist for people who are inclined to develop romantic feelings due to all sorts of chemical reactions in the brain, but I believe that's lacking for me.

[PsychoΔelica 648]

I believe the term "romantic love" is bullshit.

[Ro plz 1290]

If it gets me laid, hell yeah. I'll believe in it.

[DogManX 179]

How do threads like this always suck in emo people whining how they suck at life? Of course there's love. What it exists for specifically or what we make out of it is disputable though.

[Ro plz 1290]

Idk why but your post made me wanna make a more cohesive/serious post.

 

I do believe that romantic love exists. Its just one of the many ways that people can express the emotion. Being "romantic" isn't my style but I believe if you feel strongly about someone, you can def show them that in other ways that still makes them feel appreciated and such.

[togz 2004]

I do believe in unconditional love. Romantic love not so much. I feel like the true definition of love has just one meaning. I don't feel that love categorizes people in to the type of love you feel for them. 

 

Say if I were dating someone, I would take a bullet for them just like I would my Brother, Mother, and friends. "Romantic" love I feel like is nothing more than a confirmed physical attraction to where you feel comfortable enough to be more physical. I feel like that's the only thing that separates being someones best friend and being an exclusive pair. Which is also why I feel like if you're going to spend your life with anyone it should be someone you'd consider your best friend. I still wouldn't consider that Romantic love though because really all it is is finding the right person who tolerates your shit, and a person you can tolerate. 

I used to believe in that whole soulmate thing, but I think that's childish. I believe "Romantic" love is more of that new and interesting spark in the beginning, attraction really. After a while that spark dies down and I think spending your life with someone becomes a choice. You choose to stay with that person whether it be because of your past conflicts and resolutions or simply because you've just always been together. Either way if you don't want to be alone as you grow old, a great person to pick would probably be someone you'd consider a close friend.

That may sound negative to most people... but I think it's a realistic view on what love is. 

 

I love my family and friends for different reasons, but in the end they're all just people who have impacted my life to a point that I don't want to lose any of them, so I'd imagine a partner would be the same just more physical.

 

Iunno.

[Vitne Eveille 65]

yep its there!

[Pandabear 414]

I find the question to be worded strange. Is it suppose to be true love? Or romantic love as in something other than true love. If it's the former yes, if it's the latter, then one would have to define "romantic love" as it's rather vague and open for interpretation. If the question means something like a strong superficial crush, than yes, because obviously it exists and a lot of people go into and out of those relationships.

 

If the question is asking whether a relationship can work based on "romantic love" then my answer is both a yes and a no. For the vast majority I think most relationships crumble apart if its on romantic love, because the reasons two people are together eventually are discovered to be too weak and not legitimate. But at the same time, I'm sure there are people who stay together in those relationships because of convenience, the time they have already spent together, and out of fear. Personally I would never choose to be in one of those relationships and would break it apart asap if i did find myself in one. 

 

Also so many negative nellies on this thread. Of course true love exists, it's no easy to find or detect, but it's there. And IMO it's more than chemical reactions occurring in your brain. It comes from the very depth of your soul, your non physical heart, - or that's what I like to believe anyway.  

 

[peffy 3568]

The difference in opinions here kinda reminds me of the divide between those who believe in god(s) and those who don't.

[Lestat 2167]

Calling someone 'emo' or simply negative because their brain/soul/emotions can't process romantic love is stupid, though. Asexuality exists, aromanticism exists, and for some people it might not as evidently be present, but a lot of people simply can't feel such a deep attachment to one life-partner.

That doesn't make them sad, poor, or negative. It's simply how they (don't) feel.

[togz 2004]

Calling someone 'emo' or simply negative because their brain/soul/emotions can't process romantic love is stupid, though. Asexuality exists, aromanticism exists, and for some people it might not as evidently be present, but a lot of people simply can't feel such a deep attachment to one life-partner.

That doesn't make them sad, poor, or negative. It's simply how they (don't) feel.

+1

[Muma 97]

Do I believe in it?

How do I believe in it?

Do I believe it exists? Yes.
Do I feel it? Do I KNOW it exists. Probably not...

 

(I tend to overanalize things and get out of loop but I hope I can contribute)

We have these words, "romantic" and "love". They're often associated with each other, and often not. These exist because someone at some point has had the need to try and describe this feeling, it becomes used and used until it's accepted in society and it's defined as 'x'.

But with things such as these EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE. People describe them differently and there is no right way to feel either of these things but we talk about them as if there is some sort of universal truth and understanding to them.

 

So something like this must exist, it seems to logically follow right?

However doesn't mean it's accessible to everyone, for example aromanticism (like Lestat mentioned above). Because you can't feel it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because you can feel it and the concepts are so widely used in media (which just further strenghten you're feelings that this is desirable, correct, a goal and universal) doesn't mean that it is an absolute for everyone.

 

It always seems to come down to whether someone feels it or not and then everything gets warped around personal experiences, which is usually not great to back up a point because you're the only one who has those specific emotions which are attached to an event.

 

SO YEAH! To me it seems futile to discuss some things because it's just something that no one will evey agree on. Even if your beliefs overlap and in writing it seems the same, chances are you're talking about different things. We just use language to communicate through a set list of words and definitions with set meanings, but somehow contradictorily (cba seeing if that's a word) there seem to be infinite connotations within these.

 

 

AHRG sorry for the long windedness but this is my view on the topic so (I tried to keep it as concise as possible, I hope it worked xD)

[enyx 903]

'Love' as a universal objective concept with a single definition that somehow exists outside of our own brains? No.

 

'Love' as a subjective interpretation of chemicals being released into our bloodstream to bring about a yes/no reaction based upon what actions previously allowed our ancestors to pass on their genes (cough)? Yes.

[Furik 832]

In continuation of my post, here's a good article on what I was trying to get at.

http://www.yourtango.com/2015279743/todays-relationships-we-cheat-each-other-every-day

[beni 2149]

Also so many negative nellies on this thread. Of course true love exists, it's no easy to find or detect, but it's there. And IMO it's more than chemical reactions occurring in your brain. It comes from the very depth of your soul, your non physical heart, - or that's what I like to believe anyway.  

 

Very much this. Especially the bolded. 

[Zein 12]

What is love? 'cause I'm in a serious relationship with my pets and my bed (?) [Even I've loved so much, and at some point  I do bealive in love, but, seriously, What is it that thing? ]

[odrep 68]

What can I say about the subject? I'm cancer, so...

 

 

[lichtlune 915]

It only exists for pretty or rich people imo.

[nullmoon 784]

I think the kind of romantic love I want doesn't really exist, or it's at least very rare. I think I expect too much from people after watching all those kooky romcoms. People in real life are so dull.

[CAT5 9075]

I certainly do, although it's not always a stroll in the park. In fact, it's quite a gamble. There are endless amounts of people walking around with all kinds of emotional and psychological baggage...people that entertain a variety of fears that hinder them from forming any meaningful relationships...people afraid of pain, heartbreak, infidelity, abandonment, you name it...Fuck that, though. Pain is a part of life. I think most everyone gets their hearts stumped on at one point, but you can't allow your heart to turn to stone because of that. Shit happens, but you've got to remain open, because when you find that person that reciprocates your feelings as clearly and strongly as you do...someone that you KNOW you're eye to eye with - no bullshit, no games, no doubts - It'll be worth it. But you can't be half-assed about it. I firmly believe that you've got to give love to receive it. Simple as that.