Do you think that love is actually a made up concept?

[binary suns]

I wonder, how would this affect the population? If love was credited to only be a fantasy like scenario, how would things change? I imagine that right of the bat, wedding ceremonies and investments would crash instantly but beyond the monetary factor involved, what other fields could be affected?

people experience a plethora of diverse fantasy. fantasy drives us to pursue a reality. we imagine that the fantasy is not truly reachable, but we ignore that and call it "anxiety" and try not to deter us from pursuit of our dreams.

if "love" were proved to be purely myth, it would naturally change the culture; but whatever culture would be collapsed would only be replaced by new growth. heh, nature abhors a vacuum!

[Hooded_Crow]

I also noticed a new feeling of responsibility. I'm more careful. I think twice before running in the stairs. I have a pinch of worry before I get in the car or on the motorcycle. Because what if something happened to me? What would happen to him?

I've never felt that for anyone else before. I think it's a strong sign that there is some very deep love at play here.

[Lord Jade Cross]

So your question is more "what aspects of love are real and what aspects of love are just a cultural invention ?", if I understand well ?

Its a bit more than that. I wanted to know if it was real as a whole and not just a socially constructed ideal like, say marriage.

But as im reading the responses, this seems like it will end up in a type of philosophical tug of war.

[Light02]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

That it just feels different. That's the best answer I can give. Don't ask me "How does it feel different?" because I can't give you a satisfactory answer. Asking me to describe romantic love and it's difference with other emotions is like asking me to describe the color red and how it's different from the color blue. After all, it's still a color! But It just is different, I can't put into words how.

[Sage Raven Domino]

I believe that the cultural experience compounds on the primitive experience.

"love" as an experience is different than "love" as a cultural concept. but that is only to say, that "love" once observed is definitive, but when imagined is infinite.

That's right. What I'd like to stress, though, is that, after perceiving 'love' (most likely an infatuation initially), people start drawing conscious conclusions ('my dopamine levels go up when they're near, hence I probably want to be with them for the entire life') which are steered by the culture, rather than by objective research.

[binary suns]

True, but the flirting and attraction are at times the factors that lead to what people refer to as love if the people become involved. I could have phrased it better perhaps but my question is still the same.

if "love" can begin as a primal impulse, and then with the addition of culture grow to a new realm with wider boundaries, then if you enter that realm from a different seed does it lose the full potential of the realm? I believe not.

(well, perhaps it could be argued that each "love" does not fill the entire realm, since its existence is not infinite once observed. thus, being seeded from the primal impulse has a different statistical potential than seeded from behavior, however I would argue that it does not entirely eliminate the possibility that the same subsections of the realm could still be reached, only reduces the chance of some subsections. )

[Lord Jade Cross]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

[Hooded_Crow]

I want to spend the rest of my life with him. Not just maybe. Really really. I can't imagine not having him in my life. If the phone rings in the middle of the night, I immediately dread something might have happened to him, even though he doesn't have my home number as an emergency contact.

I'm not giving you the physiological things because I don't think it's very relevant. Fast heartbeat could be stress. Or infatuation.

I hope you have objective reasons for the infatuation-to-love transitioning. I've had many infatuations but didn't find those people suitable to me.

I think that a more appropriate topic would be 'Is amatonormativity essential?', to which the answer is 'no'. Romantics are entitled to their highly emotional behaviour but shouldn't expect everyone else to act this way.

Yeah, I noticed as I wrote this that it may sound like infatuation. Thing is. I don't get infatuated. I'm demiromantic and I develop love from friendship.

I guess infatuation renders you blind when it comes to your lover's shortcomings. I'm not blind. I know his shortcomings. But I find that I love him and accept all of him. That the things that could potentially have driven some people away don't drive me away.

My brain knows how well we get along and how happy we make each other and how much we care for each other and decides every day that this is a good idea. That we should be together. Intellect and emotion are both on board.

And obviously, we're pretty lovey-dovey but lots of other people aren't and that's perfectly fine too :)

[Sage Raven Domino]

I guess infatuation renders you blind when it comes to your lover's shortcomings. I'm not blind. I know his shortcomings. But I find that I love him and accept all of him. That the things that could potentially have driven some people away don't drive me away.

Can the same shortcomings drive you away if you see them in people other than your partner? If sometimes yes, why?

[Guest]

Jade... the problem with describing love is that it's indescribable

So are gods :lol:

And so is the taste of chocolate cake, but that doesn't mean you aren't actually tasting chocolate cake when you eat it.

[binary suns]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

the growth of a concept is outside of the possibility of a controlling hand, so it can't be "a way to enforce" because it is a culture pattern not an advertised product. sure, within the trend there may be efforts to advertise, but they are merely a piece of the puzzle, smaller than the concept itself.

once a person embraces the concept of love as an expression of monogamy and as a definition of sexuality, for that person that is the reality of love. if someone rejects that same principal, they lay claim to the aspects of love that are not as such. "love" as a concept encompasses both possible "realities" (and also a reality where both of the previously described realities are true)

essentially, "love" is undefined and infinite until we make it our own. each person experiences their own "reality" of what love is, and "love" as a whole will always morph to encompass all current realities and imagined realities.

so, "love" as aromantic concept is something that romantics experience, and "love" as a platonic event is something that I experience. they differ and thus they are not the same, but they both fall under the abstraction of love.

if you consider an individual, they experience some form of "love" whether or not they define it as such. to this individual, if they deny "romantic love" as an aspect of love, they grow love into a certain branch that denies "romance" and thus to this individual, romance is only a concept and not a reality. for another individual romantic love may be real, but to the individual who denies romantic love, romantic love is a fallacy.

So your question is more "what aspects of love are real and what aspects of love are just a cultural invention ?", if I understand well ?

Its a bit more than that. I wanted to know if it was real as a whole and not just a socially constructed ideal like, say marriage.

But as im reading the responses, this seems like it will end up in a type of philosophical tug of war.

as a whole, yes it is real. some of the individuals within our culture experience it, and so culturally speaking it is not a fantasy but an obtainable reality.

no individual experiences the entire culture of love. culturally speaking the entire concept of love is real, but individually speaking on parts of the whole is reality.

does this mae sense? I got carried away with the philosophy... I hope it was followable...

ps. it is only a tug of war if you hold onto the threads of it, and do not observe the whole of it.

[Sage Raven Domino]

Jade... the problem with describing love is that it's indescribable

So are gods :lol:

And so is the taste of chocolate cake, but that doesn't mean you aren't actually tasting chocolate cake when you eat it.

Heh, describing love (or whatever attraction) as the seventh or whatever sense sounds plausible. There are people who enjoy cake but don't desire it. There are also those who enjoy and desire it but reject it for rational reasons, e.g. a diet. There are some who don't enjoy the taste or even repulsed by it.

It's just hard for me to understand why 80% of aces desire a thing that brings a much bigger longterm complication to their lives than a piece of cake.

I understand the evolutionary necessity behind sexual attraction that >99% of people have. I don't understand why the nature has invented people who don't want to reproduce or adopt but still want to form highly emotional bonds which, to make things more complicated, are somehow required to be exclusive by most of them (the monoamorous ones) despite the absence of children and therefore any need to present them with a sole father and a sole mother for psychological reasons.

[TooOldForThis]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

Hmm... that's an interesting description, but it doesn't seem to account for polyamorous relationships. And I certainly wouldn't agree that romantic love enforces monogamy.

However, I think that societal and cultural norms often try to force the ultimately rather nebulous concept of romantic love into a very strict, tight mold which might very well enforce monogamy and control sexuality.

As for whether romantic love exists - well, yes, I've felt it and it seems like many other people have felt it also, and at least in my experience it is highly distinct both from strong friendship and limerence, though both of those often exist alongside it. That said, I think trying to describe it is somewhat similar to trying to describe sexual attraction, which we still seem to be struggling with. There's just less obvious physical evidence of its presence.

As the above poster noted, the forms which love can take are many and varied. Familial love is distinct from romantic love is distinct from friendship-based love. I'd go another step and observe that even within those categories, there is a huge amount of variation! So one person's version of romantic love might be necessarily monogamous, whereas another person's might be necessarily not. Both fall under the subcategory of 'romantic love,' which in turn falls under the larger, umbrella category of 'love.'

[binary suns]

I believe that the cultural experience compounds on the primitive experience.

"love" as an experience is different than "love" as a cultural concept. but that is only to say, that "love" once observed is definitive, but when imagined is infinite.

That's right. What I'd like to stress, though, is that, after perceiving 'love' (most likely an infatuation initially), people start drawing conscious conclusions ('my dopamine levels go up when they're near, hence I probably want to be with them for the entire life') which are steered by the culture, rather than by objective research.

realize you've just stated that culture cannot be objectively researched. anything that can be experienced can also be objectively observed.

also, I don't think "true" objectiveness is possible, but that's not me denying your point xD

my argument is, that being steered by culture does not take away from potential to be a reality. if you embrace the cultural norms, then you are not denying them. if you deny them, then you are not embracing them. (I guess now I am making a reference to quantum physics. it is the same principle. what can be is not the same as what is. what is is limited, and different per experience.)

[Tarfeather]

"love" is actually on my banned list of words for use when refering to my own relationships. At best its vague, at worst it reinforces bad misconceptions. The best way to describe a feeling is to describe it.

[binary suns]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

to those people, this sense of belonging is precisely what love is. you (and I) fear, distrust, and/or dislike that sense of belonging, because to us it is "sickness" and not "love". to us, we see other people long for that type of connection and say it is fantasy, but to them it is reality. to us it is something to discard, to them it is something to dream about until you find someone to realize it with.

understanding that, may be the key to understanding what romantic loves and that it does exist.

[Guest]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

to those people, this sense of belonging is precisely what love is. you (and I) fear, distrust, and/or dislike that sense of belonging, because to us it is "sickness" and not "love". to us, we see other people long for that type of connection and say it is fantasy, but to them it is reality. to us it is something to discard, to them it is something to dream about until you find someone to realize it with.

understanding that, may be the key to understanding what romantic loves and that it does exist.

Yeah but i experience romantic love and I'm not possessive... not like that, anyway. There is a feeling that makes you want to be the most important person to the one you love, because they're the most important person to you... whether you allow that feeling to turn you into a jealous, possessive, controlling dick, or whether you use your thinking brain and say "I don't have to abide by every feeling I have" is dependent upon the person. I don't think it really speaks to the reality of love.

[Lord Jade Cross]

I believe that the cultural experience compounds on the primitive experience.

"love" as an experience is different than "love" as a cultural concept. but that is only to say, that "love" once observed is definitive, but when imagined is infinite.

That's right. What I'd like to stress, though, is that, after perceiving 'love' (most likely an infatuation initially), people start drawing conscious conclusions ('my dopamine levels go up when they're near, hence I probably want to be with them for the entire life') which are steered by the culture, rather than by objective research.

realize you've just stated that culture cannot be objectively researched. anything that can be experienced can also be objectively observed.

also, I don't think "true" objectiveness is possible, but that's not me denying your point xD

my argument is, that being steered by culture does not take away from potential to be a reality. if you embrace the cultural norms, then you are not denying them. if you deny them, then you are not embracing them. (I guess now I am making a reference to quantum physics. it is the same principle. what can be is not the same as what is. what is is limited, and different per experience.)

Culture can be objectively researched but many times, in this field of love, people go with "im in love so pretty much anything my love interest does is acceptable to me" because the culture cultivates this thought excesively.

[Hooded_Crow]

I guess infatuation renders you blind when it comes to your lover's shortcomings. I'm not blind. I know his shortcomings. But I find that I love him and accept all of him. That the things that could potentially have driven some people away don't drive me away.

Can the same shortcomings drive you away if you see them in people other than your partner? If sometimes yes, why?

No. His potential shortcomings aren't things that would drive me away from anyone. That is why I feel this is a strong relationship. We're well matched.

[allrightalready]

True, but the flirting and attraction are at times the factors that lead to what people refer to as love if the people become involved. I could have phrased it better perhaps but my question is still the same.

if some people call poison food that does not make it food (monstersanto is even doing this)

love exists even if only a very few understand and do it and the rest mess it up and make it harder for everyone else

[Light02]

I just thought of a good (I hope) analogy to maybe help aromantics see the difference between romantic feelings and "friendshippy" feelings. It's like the difference between the love you feel for your family and the love you feel for your friends. It's still love but it's different and if I asked you how it's you different you would have a hard time putting that difference into words, right? Well, romantic love is the same, it's a similar feeling but different and I cannot put into words how it's different from friendship love. I'm not saying it's better, bigger or stronger than familial or friendship love, it's just different.

[binary suns]

And I certainly wouldn't agree that romantic love enforces monogamy.

I also agree. "enforce" implies that romantic love is a necessary result of monogamy and/or monogamy is a necessary result of romantic love.

either implies the possibility of the other; either can encourage the existence of the other; but neither is dependent on the other. You can have romantic love without a need for monogamy, and you can have monogamy without experiencing romantic love.

[Lord Jade Cross]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

to those people, this sense of belonging is precisely what love is. you (and I) fear, distrust, and/or dislike that sense of belonging, because to us it is "sickness" and not "love". to us, we see other people long for that type of connection and say it is fantasy, but to them it is reality. to us it is something to discard, to them it is something to dream about until you find someone to realize it with.

understanding that, may be the key to understanding what romantic loves and that it does exist.

Yeah but i experience romantic love and I'm not possessive... not like that, anyway. There is a feeling that makes you want to be the most important person to the one you love, because they're the most important person to you... whether you allow that feeling to turn you into a jealous, possessive, controlling dick, or whether you use your thinking brain and say "I don't have to abide by every feeling I have" is dependent upon the person. I don't think it really speaks to the reality of love.

This is an area where the concept of love VS what is love is incredibly difficult to separate.

[binary suns]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

to those people, this sense of belonging is precisely what love is. you (and I) fear, distrust, and/or dislike that sense of belonging, because to us it is "sickness" and not "love". to us, we see other people long for that type of connection and say it is fantasy, but to them it is reality. to us it is something to discard, to them it is something to dream about until you find someone to realize it with.

understanding that, may be the key to understanding what romantic loves and that it does exist.

Yeah but i experience romantic love and I'm not possessive... not like that, anyway. There is a feeling that makes you want to be the most important person to the one you love, because they're the most important person to you... whether you allow that feeling to turn you into a jealous, possessive, controlling dick, or whether you use your thinking brain and say "I don't have to abide by every feeling I have" is dependent upon the person. I don't think it really speaks to the reality of love.

:D I can't "like" this post enough

[Lord Jade Cross]

True, but the flirting and attraction are at times the factors that lead to what people refer to as love if the people become involved. I could have phrased it better perhaps but my question is still the same.

if some people call poison food that does not make it food (monstersanto is even doing this)

love exists even if only a very few understand and do it and the rest mess it up and make it harder for everyone else

Forgive my ignorance but who/what is monstersanto?

[Sage Raven Domino]

I guess infatuation renders you blind when it comes to your lover's shortcomings. I'm not blind. I know his shortcomings. But I find that I love him and accept all of him. That the things that could potentially have driven some people away don't drive me away.

Can the same shortcomings drive you away if you see them in people other than your partner? If sometimes yes, why?

No. His potential shortcomings aren't things that would drive me away from anyone. That is why I feel this is a strong relationship. We're well matched.

If you found someone else earlier at a dating site whose set of features and values matched yours, would you feel the same intense emotions? Do they arise just from the understanding that you fit with each other like a key into a lock or pieces of a puzzle?

[binary suns]

True, but the flirting and attraction are at times the factors that lead to what people refer to as love if the people become involved. I could have phrased it better perhaps but my question is still the same.

if some people call poison food that does not make it food (monstersanto is even doing this)

love exists even if only a very few understand and do it and the rest mess it up and make it harder for everyone else

agreed. but if one person calls something poison, it does not require it to be poison either. or maybe the better example is, because one person finds peanuts to be a poison does not make peanuts poison for all humans.

there are many things that are poisonous to any human, yet unfortunately some call "love" :(

the need for belonging and the sense of being "two halves to one whole" are both something that I myself would find to be poison for me. but there are people out there who this very same aspect of what can be called love, is actually very helpful, healthful, and the lack of it is deprivation. And that is OK and for them it is healthy.

we must look past our personal perspective to understand the perspective of others.

[/suddenly_I_feel_very_holier-than-thou_:(]

[Sage Raven Domino]

As the avatar of some AVENite, whose name I forgot, reads, 'I'm not looking for another half because I'm whole; I'm looking for another whole'. But again, that's rather in the friendship area in my book.

I just thought of a good (I hope) analogy to maybe help aromantics see the difference between romantic feelings and "friendshippy" feelings. It's like the difference between the love you feel for your family and the love you feel for your friends. It's still love but it's different and if I asked you how it's you different you would have a hard time putting that difference into words, right? Well, romantic love is the same, it's a similar feeling but different and I cannot put into words how it's different from friendship love. I'm not saying it's better, bigger or stronger than familial or friendship love, it's just different.

That's a nice try, but I'm a tough case for you because I haven't experienced familial love since (at latest) the puberty, so I don't remember if I've had any My ties to the family have been based on habit and weakness for all these years. I believe that's often the case with marriages too (see codependency).

[Lord Jade Cross]

I just thought of a good (I hope) analogy to maybe help aromantics see the difference between romantic feelings and "friendshippy" feelings. It's like the difference between the love you feel for your family and the love you feel for your friends. It's still love but it's different and if I asked you how it's you different you would have a hard time putting that difference into words, right? Well, romantic love is the same, it's a similar feeling but different and I cannot put into words how it's different from friendship love. I'm not saying it's better, bigger or stronger than familial or friendship love, it's just different.

Actually, no it wouldnt be all that difficult, at least for me. If you asked me what the difference between family "love" and friendship "love" is, my answer is that none would be "love". Family would be a group in which the members involved gain a certain sense of acomplishment from looking after one another, assuming of course that you're (as in the general person) not at odds with them as i am.

For me what you may call family love is a sense of obligation, whether direct or indirect that one may subject themselves to out of psychological pressure and cultural conditioning. As for friends love, again basing it on my experience is a type of businnes transactions. Basically you pay for something with somethig. May be commaradery, a sense of relation to a similar individual (not to be confused with a relationship), money, material possesions, favors, etc.

[binary suns]

I had a debate with a friend about this. He could not comprehend the concept of romantic attraction, and when I explained it in the traditional sense, including the neurotransmitters stuff, felling happiness and excitement with their presence and deep sadness with their absence. He answered, "So I have romantic attraction for everyone I feel close too? Because I feel all that both for my SO and for my best friend, except I want to have sex with one and not the other". No one was able to give a satisfactory answer.

It made sense at that point. Every relationship with each person is different, and, according to him, the concept of romantic love is a way to enforce monogamy and controlling people's sexuality. And it even made me question my orientation once again, since most of my past crushes were somehow "forced".

How would you people answer to that?

I have to agree with your friend on several points, especially since every time i see a couple (one that i can examine at a safe distance of course) there seems to be this underlying factor of belonging to just that person and no one else can even dare share that. So it seems plausible to say that romantic love is a restraining device placed on the psyche of a person.

to those people, this sense of belonging is precisely what love is. you (and I) fear, distrust, and/or dislike that sense of belonging, because to us it is "sickness" and not "love". to us, we see other people long for that type of connection and say it is fantasy, but to them it is reality. to us it is something to discard, to them it is something to dream about until you find someone to realize it with.

understanding that, may be the key to understanding what romantic loves and that it does exist.

Yeah but i experience romantic love and I'm not possessive... not like that, anyway. There is a feeling that makes you want to be the most important person to the one you love, because they're the most important person to you... whether you allow that feeling to turn you into a jealous, possessive, controlling dick, or whether you use your thinking brain and say "I don't have to abide by every feeling I have" is dependent upon the person. I don't think it really speaks to the reality of love.

This is an area where the concept of love VS what is love is incredibly difficult to separate.

I believe that, what "is" love is precisely what it is for you. the concept of love is the potential of love. the concept of love is the sum of what it "is" for all of us, plus what we all collectively believe it could be. our understanding of love is between what love "is" and what love could be. we can strive to better understand what love could be, which is what you are doing right now with this thread, but knowledge has infinite potential, we must not forget that unknowing is not a shameful thing since unknowing is required for us to know at all. they are two ends of the same stick :) in our pursuit of understanding, we simply grasp onto the stick with greater strength and a more stable hold.