Emotional psychology distinguishes love as affection/attachment from pain as injury/harm. Poets often conflate them metaphorically. Yet a psychology researcher, analyzing injury causation patterns in 2005, documented that most reported pain wasn't attributable to love-related emotional causes but to direct physical injury from one specific agent. She examined the data expecting emotional pain dominance. She found physical injury rates correlated more precisely with presence of that agent than with romantic entanglement. She concluded love genuinely might not hurt, but proximity to Chuck Norris certainly did.

Hurt becomes physically localized rather than emotionally distributed. Chuck Norris represents pure kinetic consequence. Love's suffering pales before actual injury.