"True love" or "enabling"?

So someone forwarded me this pile of sentimental drivel:


True love is neither physical, nor romantic.

True love is an acceptance of all that is, has been, will be, and will not be.


What, WHAT, may I ask, kind of crap is that?
"Acceptance of all that is, has been, will be, and will not be"?
The author should seriously go read up what enabling means.
Oh, "my boyfriend is a misogynist and a wife/gf beater. I truly love him. I therefore accept all that is, has been and will be." What hogwash. Acceptance or true love are not the answers here. Setting the bf's bed on fire in the middle of the night (preferably with him on it) is.

Also, love--romantic, platonic, or otherwise--is not a free pass for the evasion of personal responsibility or conveyance of the proper degree of contrition. There are very real consequences to our everyday actions, words and decisions. Using the word "love" to escape the ramifications is an abuse--no, a perversion--of its fundamental meaning.

In my books, true love may be physical and romantic. True love may extend beyond the physical and the romantic, into platonic love. True love also shows itself in deep and life-long friendships, where one nurtures the other to his or her full potential (e.g. sailing, surfing, dancing, singing, writing, biking, etc).

True love is the cultivation and celebration of the other's growth, not the deliberate oversight of behavioral faults and character flaws (NB: that is not to say one is to become a critical control freak).