I think people's definitions are nearly as unique as people are themselves, which is part of what makes the process of finding each other take time. Personally, I prefer the solid love of friendship to the more volatile romantic love, and for romance to develop out of strong friendship instead of out in the wilds.

I like how Rilke describes it:

“I hold this to be the highest task for a bond between two people—that each protects the solitude of the other.” — Rainer Maria Rilke

in which solitude can mean many things.. but I think the best kind of mutuality and love than can occur involves trust that develops through patience, to ultimately be able to share our secrets with persons we know will protect that which is most sacred and private to us, whatever those things might be. The things we keep in the sanctum sanctus, about which we feel the most tender.

For me, tempering my inclination to "fall" in love or otherwise put relatively too much faith in things early on, has been well worth the effort. I think that there is a certain amount of giving up on rationality that is always involved with falling in love in that way, which can put too much pressure on a growing affection despite it seeming sometimes like the greatest idea at the time. Just my experience. If you meet someone you don't initially feel "chemistry" with, it could just be the result of them similarly tempering their energies, with interest in developing solid connections rather than .. earlier and more volatile rewards. That could be a good thing.