> First, people shouldn't love you for who you are. That assumption is in popular culture but it's really pernicious if you examine it. You're making a mostly

> First, people shouldn't love you for who you are. That assumption is in popular culture but it's really pernicious if you examine it. You're making a mostly semantical argument. When you say that "you don't love your mother because she's your mother", you're saying that you don't love your mother strictly based on the fact that she was the woman who bore you (`with respect to her identity`). You then say that you love your mother because she acts `how she acts`. In my experience, when people say they want to be loved for who they are, they mean that they don't want to have to act differently than how they would naturally act in order to be liked or popular. In essence, `who someone is` is commonly interpreted to be a superset of `how someone acts` in union with other sets (like `who someone is with respect to their identity`). Thus most people would understand "be who you are" not only to mean "be who you are strictly `with respect to your identity`" but also "be who you are with respect to `how you act`". You're missing the latter in the definition in of who your mother is. Your second point is valid. In my experience it is difficult to maintain physically a peak level of excitement for a whole event.