You've known this your whole life. From the get-go as a small child before you were smart enough to put any of it into context something about the way love worked didn't seem right.
The image fed to you in fairytails where people two generic attractive people fall in love with eachother for unspecified reasons and everyone involved is happy because of it didn't seem to add up.
It's inherently meaningless and vapid as it happens anyway.
Human relationships are about 10% personal relations and about 90% attraction to meaningless predispositions. It isn't a massive coincidence that 99% of straight couples are in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
Even if that last part weren't true it wouldn't mean anything, it would just be convenient. People don't go out of their way to act like they love people that they don't and there's no reason they should.
Here are some bonus facts:
>There are 3.5 billion other potential partners on planet Earth and "the one for you" just happened to live within driving distance. It's a mathematical certainty that if you looked hard enough somewhere else on the planet you'd find someone that's more suitable. Some people find a better person that was even within driving distance (like you) while they're in a relationship and leave or cheat on their partner
>Because personality isn't 100% of what is attractive in partners, there's a margin where the love of someone's life wouldn't love them back because of arbitrary features (eg. physical attractiveness)
>People are only products of their surroundings, and the person you're in love with would be completely different given the right circumstances. If your "2qt oneitus" were born and raised in Nazi Germany she'd probably be a sadistic Nazi, and given an appropriate set of circumstances she absolutely would be. You're mostly just in love with the product of something's surroundings
>People are only interested in giving you positive emotions if they can get positive emotions back
People with a vested interest (being in love) deny this but can never seen to produce any counter-arguments. Saying this is usually met with insults like "mysognist" or "neckbeard" or conveniently ambiguity like "you just need to experience it for yourself"
The only way to be in love and enjoy it for what it's worth is to be unaware of this, and now you can never un-know it. The best you can hope for is that this post becomes but a foggy memory in the back of your mind. But the seed has been planted, and you won't ever feel the same.
Sleep tight. I'm off to hang myself.
>>25980599
>People are only products of their surroundings
Actually a fair bit of a person's personality is genetically based.
>I've never been in love
>here is my expert assessment of this thing I have no experience in
>if you disagree with me you're wrong
>>25980709
>I've never been in love
Not true and irreverent.
>here is my expert assessment of this thing I have no experience in
You don't need to personally experience something to understand it.
>if you disagree with me you're wrong
I never said that I would automatically nullify someone's argument, no.
If you have an argument I'm happy to hear it.
The one thing I will never forgive Americans for is changing the word lust into the word love. It's like a conspiracy.
>>25980694
I meant that anyone can be anything given the right circumstances.
Congratulations for completely missing the point, though.
>>25980746
>You don't need to personally experience something to understand it.
>guiz, guiz, you don't need to experience something that relies solely on actually experiencing it to understand it properly.
Shut the fuck up, you autistic cunt. You're embarrassing yourself.
You're right OP
Love isn't universal which makes it flawed
For love to be real you'd have to love everything as much as everything else, otherwise it becomes arbitrary, conditional, and fake. And even if you were able to love everything as much as everything else, it would no longer be special because it would just be your default reaction to others.
Imperfect and prefabricated love is better than no love at all, I guess.
>>25980913
Basically whenever you love one thing conditonally, you do it at the expense of everything else you could love but are excluding.
>>25980760
And now there's superlust where you just treat people like a hole to fuck, so the many gradations of what lust is keep deepening as we treat one another more like objects
What I'm dubbing "superlust" is probably what other people think when they think of lust. It's not even superlust though because it's way more apathetic than real lust, it's just going through the motions.
>>25980891
Nice cop out. Chances are you've never experienced actual love and only fuck fat girls
>>25980891
Exhibit A, everyone. God are you an idiot.
>People with a vested interest (being in love) deny this but can never seen to produce any counter-arguments. Saying this is usually met with insults like "mysognist" or "neckbeard" or conveniently ambiguity like "you just need to experience it for yourself"
Saying "you just need to see it for yourself" is not an argument. Anyone can do it.
Make a legitimate argument or just leave, please.
>>25980913
So there's no logistical way that could even make sense
Whatever I guess, life ain't perfect. That's what makes it interesting
>>25980996
You're not presenting an argument that requires any more rebuttal than the one you're getting - which is you very clearly have never been loved or in love. Trying to pre-empt this perfectly acceptable criticism doesn't make it any less correct.
Typing out what amounts to a bunch of comically biased nonsense and trying to dress it up as factual isn't an argument. It's a poorly constructed attempt to reframe a failing you clearly refuse to accept about yourself.
>>25980985
>projection - the post
>>25981104
>You're not presenting an argument that requires any more rebuttal than the one you're getting
ah so my argument was so bad it doesn't even NEED a counter argument
Gotcha
>Typing out what amounts to a bunch of comically biased nonsense and trying to dress it up as factual isn't an argument. It's a poorly constructed attempt to reframe a failing you clearly refuse to accept about yourself.
I'm not coddling your pseudo-intellectualism.
You haven't got an argument to make so just leave the thread please.
>>25980599
Pretty much everything is a product of it's surroundings even you yourself are. Think about it, if you didn't have any surroundings what even would you be? What would you think about? You would have no language no experience no memories. You would just be nothing essentially. So if anything, love being a product of your surroundings just solidifies it as a real thing. I do think things like destiny are bullshit though. There was no greater power that decided you would fall in love with someone else.
>>25980599
>If your "2qt oneitus" were born and raised in Nazi Germany she'd probably be a sadistic Nazi
Implying I wouldn't fall madly in love with sadistic nazi.
Holy shit. People are actually disagreeing with the OP.
I didn't realize how stupid /r9k/ had gotten recently.
Commit suicide in the name of our one true king of israel.
I believe in true love. Maybe not love at first sight, but I do believe in the growth of mere attraction into deep, abiding affection over time.
What I don't believe in is the notion that there is somebody out there for everyone.
Some people are incapable of love.
I'm a broken person, and am completely incapable of ever truly loving anyone.
That's the paradox of no gf. Even if I got one, I wouldn't know what to do.
>>25982185
>Even if I got one, I wouldn't know what to do.
Right in the feels
I would if they were literally exactly like me, maybe. Not even sure in that case either. But any other person? Nope, there's some kind of barrier between me and others in place. It seems so pointless too.
Worst part is there was a time when this wasn't true and it all came pretty intuitively.
>>25982216
>Not even sure in that case either
I dated a girl who was like me.
She left me, saying I was too similar to her. I guess that makes sense, I'd leave me if I could.
>>25982185
>the growth of mere attraction into deep, abiding affection over time.
It's the opposite. Love hits hard and then slowly fades over time.
Basic biology/science or whatever. It's not poetic.
>Some people are incapable of love.
Well do you love your 2D waifu?
