Hypothetically, say we have X, who's in a relationship with Y. Y is not sure that it's in love with X; which makes X insecure as X is. Or at least, that's what I always see around me. But think about it, wouldn't it be an advantage for X if Y wasn't? I mean, Y acts the way it acts towards Y any way, that's a given in this story, it's not dependent, and X can see this, now, if we assume that Y is not in love with X, then Y's affection and treatment of X is guaranteed to be free of pink filters, meaning that it's lasting and not just a temporary rouse, bringing a long-term gain for X. However if Y is in love with X, it could very well be a temporary hormone-based rouse that will quickly fade away. Or at least, that's what I told a fellow student who's girlfriend is insecure, however the entire group looked at me dumbstruck there, from their perspective I was treating love calculating and coldly but I don't really see it like that, it's more feeling than anything. From what I observe around me, people that are madly in love have very superficial feelings for each other while people that aren't share a deeper connexion, shouldn't it be obvious that it would frighten me if a partner would claim to be in love with me rather than simply loving me on a more personal level? Especially if what you do together stays the same any way? I really don't see why people always aspire that the love another feels for you is caused by chemicals rather than the hypothetical ghost inside the machine. Ideally, a romantic interest should see me mainly as a friend but be close enough for me for that whole shebang and shat.