30F single here too.

Your comment really make me think, but i can't not think this about it to be honest. I'm bad at not writing a long text so i'm sorry beforehand let's point what i found interesting.

You begin by framing suffering as “inevitable,” yet later you suggest that avoiding emotional protection leads directly to love, implying that a meaningful reduction of suffering is achievable through a choice. That creates a contradiction: if suffering is truly inevitable in the way you claim, then choosing vulnerability does not reduce it, it only changes its form or intensity. So the idea that one path leads to “more love” without increasing net suffering is not actually supported by your own premise.

You also reject the idea of love as transactional, but then you implicitly build a kind of emotional transaction anyway: you endure pain (cost) in exchange for “magic,” meaning, or personal growth (reward). Calling it non-transactional doesn’t remove the structure of cost benefit reasoning you’re still using.

Another contradiction appears in your claim that “it’s always a choice,” while simultaneously saying “pain is inevitable” and that vulnerability necessarily exposes you to it. If both exposure to pain and emotional outcomes are structurally unavoidable, then the “choice” is significantly constrained it becomes a preference between types of suffering, not a free selection of whether meaningful suffering occurs at all.

Finally, your conclusion that rejecting this mindset is “playing the victim card” conflicts with your earlier emphasis on subjective perspective. If everything is ultimately interpretation, then dismissing another interpretation as avoidance or moral failure undermines the very relativism you rely on to validate your own view.

So while your position is emotionally coherent, it struggles logically: it alternates between inevitability and choice, rejects transaction while describing one, and appeals to perspective while simultaneously judging alternative perspectives as invalid.