Comment on Is it reasonable to tell a person you once loved about the fact years later?

• nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Love is something that is built up over years of being in a relationship. No relationship, no love.

  What?

  From the Encyclopædia Britannica:

  love, an emotion characterized by strong feelings of affection for another arising out of kinship, companionship, admiration, or benevolence. In a related sense, “love” designates a benevolent concern for the good or welfare of others. The term is also used to refer to sexual attraction or erotic desire toward another. Love as an individual emotion has been studied in several scientific disciplines, including psychology, biology and neuroscience, anthropology, and sociology.

  Romeo and Juliet never got to live as a couple. Were they not in love?

  We knew each other for 11 years, were bonded by various class activities. I believe that’s enough for the proper and pure feelings to form.

  source

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Whatever you say, brother. We’re only here to provide advice. And so far, everyone’s advice seems to be on the same page. It’s your decision whether to take it.

    I will however point out that, in fact, the modern consensus is that Romeo and Juliet were not in love and that it was, at best, a hormone-driven highschool crush that lasted less than a week

    source
  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    You’re… quoting an encyclopedia. On matters of romance and affection. You’re not coming across as “in love”; you’re coming across as infatuated. You’re in love with the idea of her, and the even more abstract idea of being in a relationship with her. I can just about guarantee you that reality is unlikely to fully match what you have in mind.

    And… well, taken with your other replies and apparent reluctance to integrate and/or accept the rather consistent gist of the replies you’re getting, you’re starting to give off a wee bit of an incel vibe.

    But anyways:

    This isn’t a matter you can logically litigate. Human emotion is simply not a clean, cut-and-dried domain.

    My further advice to you would be to focus on human connection first. Writ large, treat dating and romance as a side quest, not a primary quest. Focus on befriending people, and deepening interpersonal connection before anything else.

    I don’t know what the nuance of the situation is, of course, but it sounds like you may have the opportunity to rekindle a friendship, and then see if it goes anywhere as things evolve. If you push really hard on the romance angle, especially if this is a very out-of-the-blue thing for her, you’re very likely to squick her out and nuke any chance of friendship, let alone anything more than that. Treat her as a human, and a friend, and then see where things go.

    source

    • nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      You’re… quoting an encyclopedia. On matters of romance and affection.

      Well, someone was disagreeing with me on the definition of a word. What else was I supposed to quote? A dictionary?

      I can just about guarantee you that reality is unlikely to fully match what you have in mind.

      Not sure what you mean. We knew each other quite closely.

      And… well, taken with your other replies and apparent reluctance to integrate and/or accept the rather consistent gist of the replies you’re getting, you’re starting to give off a wee bit of an incel vibe.

      I… Don’t understand. The only replies I argued with tried to redefine love as someone that may not happen outside of an established relationship, a definition seemingly not familiar nor to Wikipedia, nor Britannica, nor Shakespeare, nor Dostoevsky.

      Could you quote the parts where I’m giving “incel vibes”, please?

      but it sounds like you may have the opportunity to rekindle a friendship, and then see if it goes anywhere as things evolve. If you push really hard on the romance angle, especially if this is a very out-of-the-blue thing for her, you’re very likely to squick her out and nuke any chance…

      What part of “one-sided” could you miss? I’m not looking into meeting her again. She now lives thousands of kilometres away and definitely never liked me. My question had no hidden meaning: the “confession” was simply a matter of curiosity satisfaction, a reassuring compliment, and a way to close unanswered questions, as every person has a right to know of everything related to them in the highest possible extent.

      source

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I’m not here to debate you. I am here to provide advice from my lived experience.

        Take it or leave it - this isn’t my monkey, and it’s not my circus.

        source
  • wizblizz@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    tips hat

    Ackchually milady, the eshiclopedia brihtannika says you’re wrong! Checkmate lib

    laughs in incel

    source
• yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Genuinely think you’re arguing about semantics with the love/attraction thing. Like, you can profess your love to someone despite no romantic relationship existing yet.

  It’s honestly irrelevant what term OP uses to describe their feelings.

  Though I do agree with the 2nd paragraph.

  source

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s not a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of drawing a distinction between 2 emotions that are often confused with each other. Call it whatever you want, but what OP calls love is clearly not what a regular person would consider to be love. This distinction, which has been made by several other people in this thread as well, is important because people will and often do justify being a creep as that they’re “in love.” See how already so much of OP’s argument hinges on the idea that he is in love? To be clear, he is very explicit that he is not just attracted to her - he is very clear that he believes he feels what a regular person would consider to be love.

    Granted, in hindsight and given his responses so far, it seems unlikely that drawing this distinction would make a meaningful practical difference. But I fail to see how addressing one of the core parts of OP’s arguments can be considered as meaningless argument over semantics

    source