Let's not get all poetic here, okay? The more I think about the various ways relationships form, the more I start to wonder just what qualifies as love--and perhaps by extension, just how weak or strong love is capable of being. My primary interest is in defining romantic love, such as the love someone ideally feels for their spouse, though in thinking about this, I have wondered if there truly is anything that sets romantic love apart from platonic and/or familial love. I'm posting this here in large part because I know there are people on this forum with more experience in the romance department than I have (unless every last one of them has been lying). I figure they might be able to raise some points I've failed to consider.

I think the first thing that made me question my understanding of just what love is and isn't came from a thought experiment: Suppose I fall in love with a woman. Suppose I later learn that she was born male and has no interest in getting rid of her birth genitals. Would I still love her? I don't expect any of you to answer that question for me. I only bring it up to demonstrate that I am unsure. As far as I am aware, I'm a 0 on the Kinsey scale, so I do question whether or not I am capable of remaining in love with someone after finding out that she has male genitals. Think what you will of my answer (or rather, my lack of an answer), but please keep it to yourself for now; my interest is not currently in determining whether or not I should or should not love her, but rather in determining whether my feelings for her qualified as love in the first place if I am capable of falling out of love with her over what is between her legs.

The idea of this "Schrödinger's Love" led me to wonder about other scenarios in which ignorance could lead me to love someone I wouldn't normally fall in love with. And thus I was led to the issue of online relationships. If I develop feelings for someone I've met online, but never actually met in person, would those feelings remain if the person I thought myself to be in love with turned out to be a man (or just a woman I find physically unattractive)? I suppose video communication is pretty hard to fake, but I'm not asking about ascertaining a person's appearance so much as I'm questioning the idea of falling in love with someone I've never actually seen. Is it love if mere physical appearance may be sufficient to end it? I don't like to think that the hypothetical object of my affections turning out to be someone I find unattractive could be a deal-breaker, but I can't deny the possibility.

---

It's funny, I actually posted something about this subject a while back on another forum that would likely be relevant here. A lot of confusion stems from the fact that we use one word (love) to describe several different types of brain activity. On the other hand, the Greeks had four different words to describe love, each with their own separate meanings.

First, we have storgē. This kind of love is basically affection. The kind that naturally occurs for most parents towards offspring. So, it's the familial love you mentioned.


Next, we have philía, and this is a kind of "brotherly" love. Loyalty can fall under this definition as well (nakama, if you will). So, this could be considered platonic love, although it can also be familial as well, depending on how close you are to your family.

Third is érōs, which is desire. This kind of love can sometimes be a mixture of timing, attraction, and circumstance, as there's rarely any logic to it (e.g. love at first sight). While this type of love is usually thought of as the kind someone feels when they're attracted to another person, it can also be applied to thing like food (ex: I love pizza). This seems to be where most of your questions lie, so I'll elaborate a little. In the hypothetical scenarios you mentioned, you have a desire for this person, but then you find out they weren't at all what they seemed to be (or what you hoped them to be), and thus you lose your desire for them. You may still care about the person in a platonic manner, but you lose your desire for them. There's more to this, but I'll get to it in a minute.

So far, all of these describe feelings people have towards others. However, the fourth one is not necessarily a feeling, but rather, a choice. It's known as agápē, which is the purest form of unconditional love. This love is selfless; it gives and expects nothing in return. It's the kind of love that would compel someone to give up his or her life for someone he/she cares about if he/she deemed it necessary. It's unique, because with the other types of love, you either feel it or you don't. However, agápē has to be a conscious decision as most humans are incapable of actually feeling this way towards someone else. Granted, feeling the other three love types will make this easier, but it's really difficult when someone has done something that causes you to no longer feel one or more of the other three.

So, to answer your question, romantic love (when you're in a committed relationship, anyway) is at its most basic, a combination of affection, camaraderie, and desire. Ideally though, it should include agápē as well, because there may be times when you feel no desire for your significant other, and if you don't make the conscious effort to continue loving that person, your camaraderie and affection could crumble as well.

Hope that helps.

---

It is of some use to me. I recall reading about something similar once in a psychology textbook. The... Triangular Theory of Love, I believe? [types name into Wikipedia] Yep, that's exactly what I remember. That said, I wasn't necessarily thinking exclusively of what that theory calls "romantic love" when using the term myself. It calls back to the problem you mentioned; English-speakers (or at least the ones where I'm from) only use a single term for something that is likely too complex to be properly encompassed by a single word.

---

Since TheDoctor mentioned Greek culture, I feel like posting this here. In this dialogue, Socrates was debating with this guy called Phaedrus. Phaedrus said romantic love (eros) is an inferior form of love cause it makes people lose their minds. Socrates disagrees with the conclusion. He says eros makes people mad, and this is why it is good. There is this special craziness to it, and that's what makes it different from other forms of affection.

To me, I think love is the appreciation for a person or thing.

Imagining them not being a part of your life makes you sad, and you enjoy their company often. Although they make you upset or angry, you know that you will tolerate them because that is what love does to a person.

I haven't had many experiences in romantic love, but I have a best friend and lots of family. Based on them, that's what I see as "love".

I also love music, and based on my theory of what love is, it doesn't necessary have to be human. It could be an idea, or feeling that you "love".

Being 17, I honestly don't know anything at all so...aha.

---

As an asexual (someone who experiences minimal or no sexual attraction) and as an aromantic (someone who experiences minimal or no romantic attraction), the way love works for me kinda goes against what some believe to be a fundamental of human nature. While I don't want to sleep with anyone of any sex no matter how good society deems their looks, nor do I have any urge to kiss or date, it's still possible for someone like me to crush.

It's called a squish, a feeling beyond that of a typical friendship, yet still purely platonic. We can have a significant other, but not feel attracted to them in the same way others do. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'm even capable of squishing, as ever since the years of my depression, no such feelings have arisen. It may just be a lack of human interaction on my part, I don't know.

So I guess if I were in the position describe in the OP, it wouldn't matter what's between her legs, as the content of their character is most important. I can tell if someone's good looking or not, but I won't feel attracted to them, just like I'm sure heterosexual people can tell if someone of the same sex is good looking or not. I don't really judge people based on gender, it doesn't make a difference, I'll platonically love them based on the content of their personality alone. This is also why I haven't specified my gender in my profile, I don't care if people know I'm male, but for the sake of a first impression, me being male of female shouldn't matter.

Man its not about the song and its not to get poetic? The first is a reasonable request but the latter seems inevitable considering the subjective nature of the subject matter.

I would say a large component of love these days is trust. Someone who you know well and as a result feel comfortable enough around to be yourself. We have all kinds of social pressures working on us in any one situation. These can obviously cause us a lot of stress (tolerating a persons presence we wouldn't otherwise associate with, restraining our own interests because others might find them undesirable, etc). I think with someone you love you find this not to be the case. Not that there won't be anything you won't change for them but that it is someone you are generally the most comfortable around and who accepts you and your flaws and differences.

Of course I would argue for the relationship to be romantic there would also need to be a degree of attraction there as well. Probably the separating factor between platonic and romantic love. In the circumstance you describe there are too many variables to give a concrete answer. The expectations of the relationship would have changed (and so the trust would have gone). One individuals genitalia (while perhaps not having needed to be defined before) would have been expected of the other person. They might feel no attraction to the other persons genitalia (or they might) and therefore find it difficult to care about them romantically. It could be seen as a break of trust between the partners. One might think the other should have told then prior to that and be offended by the absence of that trust. Even if they were told in plenty of time that "trust" is still possibly broken in the expectations of the other partner (as one appears physically gendered outside their genitalia).

There's too many factors to consider to give a concrete answer to your scenario.

TLDR:

You need two things for romantic love:
Trust
Attraction


baby don't hurt me

---

Personally, while love no doubt shows itself in feelings, I think feelings alone are too unreliable to be solid evidence of true love - they go up and down depending on circumstances, and as time goes fond memories of people tend to get more or less altered; for instance, you might start to think so fondly of an old friend that you ignore the arguments you've had with them and the times they were rude. I have often looked back and thought "wow, I really loved that person" only to realize later that I just loved spending time with them or loved certain aspects of their personality rather than their whole being: in other words, a kind of conditional love depending on how they act. Also, if you make a new friend, both parts can love being around the other for a while only to get "burned out" on talking, usually reducing the relation to a routine that eventually fades away entirely (a high school teacher of mine compared the start of a friendship to a honeymoon in a marriage).

A better proof of love is what you're willing to endure for the sake of another person: to use an Ace Attorney example, Phoenix may love Maya platonically or romantically depending on your interpretation, but the fact that Phoenix was willing to risk his reputation (2-4), and his life (3-5, the bridge part) for her sake is proof that the love is there in some form.

(Hope this isn't too pretentious...)

---