Why do people get upset if I say that I don’t believe in love?

It's not something I'd be annoyed by but it's an odd thing in itself to say. Clearly you can be in love romatically (even if it's often short-lived) or love, say, your children. How are you defining it to not believe it?

To answer your question, they get upset because you’re telling them you know better than they do! You don’t!
just because you’ve not experienced love doesn’t mean it’s not real.

I’ve never seen a plane or train crash, does that mean I can say “ I don’t believe in plane crashes”?
Plenty of people are in love and have loved each other for a long time. Just because you haven’t experienced love, doesn’t make it any less real.

How old are you OP?

Oh ok then, I was confused because you answered my reply to OP as if I had been talking to you.

Flamintula · 19/03/2023 19:22

Strugglingtodomybest · 19/03/2023 18:10
I think you're suffering from childhood emotional neglect.
^www.parentingforbrain.com/childhood-emotional-neglect/^

Why? I was very much loved as a child by family and extended family and I loved them in return. Except, if you'd asked me I wouldn't have been able to tell you what that felt like. I knew I loved then because every one loves their family. But what is that feeling, actually? Scared of losing them? Missing them? I didn't ever miss my parents when I left home. There are lots of people I don't want to lose, but I don't love them.

I think that your situation is very different to the OP's and I don't think that you have suffered childhood emotional neglect. Just to be clear😁

For what it's worth I agree with the OP, I don't think love exists in reality as the selfless, unconditional exalted concept we've hyped up in society/culture. Romantic love is usually just sex drive/lust; after you get used to the person it can become a lifelong friendship, although the lust of course fades away after a while. Familial love comes from the instinct to protect one's own genes and survival, but there are many conditions attached. Many people don't love their own children anymore if said children choose the "wrong" partner/religion/profession or have the "wrong" sexual orientation etc.

I can accept this but it just seems like pedantry - protecting your genes lust etc etc is what people mean by love really but love sounds nicer. So I think saying you don’t believe in love… does not really make sense.

I can accept this but it just seems like pedantry - protecting your genes lust etc etc is what people mean by love really but love sounds nicer. So I think saying you don’t believe in love… does not really make sense.

I agree. I think some people are looking for love to be something really profound and beyond just our animal instincts conditioning us to feel a certain way, or it must not exist. But everything we do or feel ultimately comes from our animal instincts, love is no different.

Excuse me? I was responding to other commenters/to the conversation. You were the one who asked the question in the first place - you shouldn't have done that if you didn't want answers.

I don't have any ridiculous or irrational fears. Just disagreeing with you is not ridiculous or irrational. You sound like a spoiled child.

I think if OP is aromantic or asexual that's fine and makes sense but it doesn't mean everyone else is those things.

No, I didn’t ’feel’ loved by them, there was nothing there. They clearly only had a kid, because that’s what your supposed to do

Well this is emotional abuse. Childhood emotional abuse and neglect are very much correlated with difficulty in forming relationships in adulthood.

Love is something that is learned.

If op's never had loving role models it's no wonder she doesnt understand it.

People should lay off bullying someone who's experienced such childhood trauma.

You would need an awful lot of therapy to undo the harm done by your childhood, op. Sorry that's what you had.

I don’t think this is what people mean when they say “love”, though. Culturally, "love" is a very exalted concept. Think about the Corinthians passage that is usually read at weddings: “Love is patient, love is kind, it is not self-seeking, it keeps no record of wrongs” etc. Such sentiment does not exist amongst human beings in real life, it is entirely fictional.

That is a good point - but I don’t think everyone thinks that is the definition of love either. I think that does not come naturally perhaps but is something you work on. Which makes it more of a choice really in which case it can be real but it less innate.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that many people say they love their parents but she despite not loving them took care of them thus showing love as defined in Corinthians 1. But to the people who think it is a feeling it is not love but duty.

There are people that risk their lives to save others daily when it is not their job or for their relatives but some parents believe since they think they would give their lives for their children it means they love them. Despite knowing we have a biological imperative to protect them.

So is love a feeling, a choice or a mix of both? I think not everyone defines it the same.

I don’t think this is what people mean when they say “love”, though. Culturally, "love" is a very exalted concept. Think about the Corinthians passage that is usually read at weddings: “Love is patient, love is kind, it is not self-seeking, it keeps no record of wrongs” etc. Such sentiment does not exist amongst human beings in real life, it is entirely fictional.

There's a lot of pushing of selflessness in Christianity, that's what that definition comes from, there's nothing official about it.

When you look up the definition of love it just says "an intense feeling of deep affection". That's all there is to it really.