>>5
>>6
Ssh. It's a secret, but I'll explain:

Guys are fundamentally girls that have different expectations of them from society. Most of our differences come from nurture, although perhaps we differ a little in hormonal balance. (PMS is not a myth. Hormones are mood-altering drugs. Similiarly, Testosterone alters how guys think.)

Hence, if you remove this factor altogether, relationships are easy. Here's a simple thought exercise:

Classify how much of it falls under "Hormones thinking" and "You thinking". Let's say Romeo loves Juliet. Would Romeo still love Juliet if Juliet were male? Is he genuinely interested in her as a fun person to be with that he enjoys the company of? Romeo and Juliet were HIGHLY IRONIC by intention. They fell in "love" just moments after meeting each other and you could already tell it was going to lead to a sticky end, since Romeo only cares that Juliet is pretty, female and finds him attractive.

If you can't honestly answer "Yes, I would still love so-and-so if he was a gender I had no sexual attraction to", this is known as a crush. Erotic love is fine - we're human, after all, but don't expect it to last - This is why "People" magazine still makes money. Chocolate is a nice treat. Chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner gets tiresome.

If your can, what you have is love based on mutual respect. This might not be as gratifying (It could be compared to having a meal without dessert), but at least it'll give you someone to talk to twenty years down the line.

Neither form of love is more holy or sacred than the other, unless you value it to be.