Is love inherently mutual? If what you feel is not reciprocated

>>18706194
>If what you feel is not reciprocated fully, can it truly be called love?
No

>Is love inherently mutual?
>If what you feel is not reciprocated fully, can it truly be called love?

This is one of those questions that can't be answered correctly since we don't have a rock-solid definition of what "love" is, except our vague understanding of chemicals involved in the process. Science tells us that yes, it is possible to have these chemicals released into our bloodstream even if the other person does not do the same. Ethics vary in each person, so no point in bringing them in. Religion - it depends. Based on the bible, for example, I still don't have a clue about what "love" is, since it is written in unclear metaphores and gibberish.

>>18706194
>Is love inherently mutual?
It's obviously hopless, so not much to ponder I'm afraid.

>>18706194
Some dude on here yesterday said it best
All love is in some way conditional and is therefore not love.

>>18706194
Love shouldn't be confused with infatuation. Love is when you talk to someone despite knowing it will change you. It is not somthing as trivial as an emotion, it is a descriptor for a bond between people, and like a chemical bond, each side gets somthing different out of it.

>>18706194
I would say yes, but women and men love in different ways.