askchapo

I'm convinced that love is dependent on material conditions insofar that it's different for every relationship. For someone it could be a willingness to be a better person for someone else. For others it's that you're willing to die together (soon or far off). It could mean willing to die for them. Someone else it might be trusting them with your life without hesitation. It might be building a sanctuary with one another. It could mean always being willing to learn more about them.

I think defining it against a cultural norm is a fool's game.

To care for them emotionally

I don't think there is a difference. Part of the reasons things get weird is that tradition has mixed things up and split them up in ways that are artificial but financially viable. It is a patriarchy thing.

The greeks they had four words egos, agape, fillia, and the one I always forget. But they are all terms to describe the social realities of caring for people more than the emotional ones.

Really the only thing that varies is the degree to which you feel the emotion. For reasons that must have felt sensible at the time it was decided lust must be a part of love. It doesn't, and isn't.

Also, I googled ot and they actually have eight types but it is hard to find a place that isn't a mommy blog that talks about that so who knows. Embrace sexual anarchy

There is no difference. There is love with desire and lust, and sometimes that lasts. There is love with deep friendship. There is love that is inexplicable, despite flaws. And sometimes there is love with all of these.

It's possibly my most idealist take, that, somehow, despite all reason, love is more than material affinity, brain chemistry, or temporary passion, but something platonic and divine and fundamental. And I'm honestly not sorry for having love as a terminal value, because with it, there is no choice but to be a socialist.