Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

How young would you go?

Page 5 of 9 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Grisha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,336
Location: LA-ish

26 Mar 2011, 6:25 pm

Bethie wrote:
Grisha wrote:
Bethie wrote:

Well, I guess I should have specified ROMANTIC relationship.

I would agree that friends + sex = a romantic relationship,
but not that a romantic relationship HAS to include sex.
That's just a preference, if one the vast majority of people seem to have.


What's the difference between "friends" and a "romantic (but non-sexual) relationship"? Kissing?


Well, no, not all non-sexual romantic relationships include kissing, though some do.


Hand holding then? I'm just trying to figure out the point of dating according to your sexual preference in this case, couldn't you have this sort of relationship with anyone?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 6:30 pm

MCalavera wrote:
t something's missing when six is not in it.

Again, this is opinion. It might be a majority one, but not universal.
MCalavera wrote:
Maybe you're not seeing the romantic side to sex much.

Well, no, being asexual.
MCalavera wrote:
Let me help you out.

My, that's snarky.
MCalavera wrote:
Trying to please someone sexually is love => romance

Really? Pretty sure that happens all the time on one night stands.
MCalavera wrote:
Trying to get the other person to orgasm and experience strong intense good feelings is love => romance

See above.
MCalavera wrote:
In the same way that cuddling is love, cuddling and joining the two genitals together is love => romance

So everyone who cuddles or f***s is in love? lulz.
MCalavera wrote:
Need I say more or are you now convinced? :P

Yeah, that was silly.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 6:31 pm

Grisha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Grisha wrote:
Bethie wrote:

Well, I guess I should have specified ROMANTIC relationship.

I would agree that friends + sex = a romantic relationship,
but not that a romantic relationship HAS to include sex.
That's just a preference, if one the vast majority of people seem to have.


What's the difference between "friends" and a "romantic (but non-sexual) relationship"? Kissing?


Well, no, not all non-sexual romantic relationships include kissing, though some do.


Hand holding then? I'm just trying to figure out the point of dating according to your sexual preference in this case, couldn't you have this sort of relationship with anyone?


I notice you keep mentioning physical acts as being definitive in determining the type of relationship.

Why is this?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Jonsi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,219

26 Mar 2011, 6:36 pm

Because physical acts tend to define romance.

Not saying it is all romance is, it's just that most romantic relationships contain some act of physically bonding as a sign of love.



Volodja
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 814

26 Mar 2011, 6:37 pm

I agree 100% with Bethie's response to MCalavera. Not everyone's relationship is the same. Just because most people view sex as a huge part of a romantic relationship doesn't mean that those who have a different relationship are in any way wrong or not "in love"

I would also be interested to know what makes a relationship for asexual people (I'm aware that all are different btw , but to whoever answers this - what is the difference between friendship and relationship for you?)



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 6:38 pm

Jonsi wrote:
Because physical acts tend to define romance.

Not saying it is all romance is, it's just that most romantic relationships contain some act of physically bonding as a sign of love.


Right. The question is whether that same theme applies to ALL relationships-

that is, is a relationship without sex or even without physicality not, in fact, a romantic relationship,

or is it just not the type of romantic relationship individuals who require those things in romantic relationships would want?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 6:40 pm

Volodja wrote:
I agree 100% with Bethie's response to MCalavera. Not everyone's relationship is the same. Just because most people view sex as a huge part of a romantic relationship doesn't mean that those who have a different relationship are in any way wrong or not "in love"

I would also be interested to know what makes a relationship for asexual people (I'm aware that all are different btw , but to whoever answers this - what is the difference between friendship and relationship for you?)


Romantic attraction and romantic love, and the expressions of both by the individuals involved.

Kissing
Cuddling
Flirting
Declarations of love
Living together
Marriage
Children

All the things present in sexual romantic relationships...without the sex.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 26 Mar 2011, 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jonsi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,219

26 Mar 2011, 6:42 pm

Bethie wrote:
Jonsi wrote:
Because physical acts tend to define romance.

Not saying it is all romance is, it's just that most romantic relationships contain some act of physically bonding as a sign of love.


Right. The question is whether that same theme applies to ALL relationships-

that is, is a relationship without sex or even without physicality not, in fact, a romantic relationship,

or is it just not the type of romantic relationship individuals who require those things in romantic relationships would want?

Obviously it doesn't. Humans are as variable as numbers.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 6:44 pm

Jonsi wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Jonsi wrote:
Because physical acts tend to define romance.

Not saying it is all romance is, it's just that most romantic relationships contain some act of physically bonding as a sign of love.


Right. The question is whether that same theme applies to ALL relationships-

that is, is a relationship without sex or even without physicality not, in fact, a romantic relationship,

or is it just not the type of romantic relationship individuals who require those things in romantic relationships would want?

Obviously it doesn't. Humans are as variable as numbers.


"Infinite variety in infinite combinations."


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Grisha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,336
Location: LA-ish

26 Mar 2011, 6:46 pm

Bethie wrote:
I notice you keep mentioning physical acts as being definitive in determining the type of relationship.

Why is this?


Because people date according to their sexual preference - would you have a romantic relationship like you describe with a woman?

Why not, if nothing physical is involved?



Jonsi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,219

26 Mar 2011, 6:46 pm

Indeed to the infinite combinations comment.

I'm just gonna step out though, I can't tell if I'm being mocked or agreed with. :D



Last edited by Jonsi on 26 Mar 2011, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Volodja
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 814

26 Mar 2011, 6:48 pm

Grisha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
I notice you keep mentioning physical acts as being definitive in determining the type of relationship.

Why is this?


Because people date according to their sexual preference - would you have a romantic relationship like you describe with a woman?

Why not, if nothing physical is involved?


Attraction is still relevant, whether anything physical takdes place or not, isn't it?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 6:48 pm

Grisha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
I notice you keep mentioning physical acts as being definitive in determining the type of relationship.

Why is this?


Because people date according to their sexual preference - would you have a romantic relationship like you describe with a woman?

Why not, if nothing physical is involved?


Asexuals likewise date who we are attracted to-
the only difference being that that attraction is romantic, not sexual.

But..that doesn't answer the question as to why you imply handholding, or kissing, or sex, or any other arbitrary PHYSICAL act denotes one type of relationship versus another?

I don't want a romantic relationship with a woman because there are far more differences between men and women than their genitalia. :?
I've never even gotten along with women, the sole exclusion being my mother, and that's because she's evolutionarily-predisposed to tolerate me.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Mar 2011, 7:05 pm

Bethie wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
t something's missing when six is not in it.

Again, this is opinion. It might be a majority one, but not universal.
MCalavera wrote:
Maybe you're not seeing the romantic side to sex much.

Well, no, being asexual.
MCalavera wrote:
Let me help you out.

My, that's snarky.
MCalavera wrote:
Trying to please someone sexually is love => romance

Really? Pretty sure that happens all the time on one night stands.
MCalavera wrote:
Trying to get the other person to orgasm and experience strong intense good feelings is love => romance

See above.
MCalavera wrote:
In the same way that cuddling is love, cuddling and joining the two genitals together is love => romance

So everyone who cuddles or f**** is in love? lulz.
MCalavera wrote:
Need I say more or are you now convinced? :P

Yeah, that was silly.


What is love anyway? You're making it sound like it's something big when it's just chemicals in the brain.

I was actually serious about consensual f*****g implying sexual/romantic love. That's why they call it "make love".

But hey, I tried what I could. Wish you all the best.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

26 Mar 2011, 7:09 pm

MCalavera wrote:
What is love anyway? You're making it sound like it's something big when it's just chemicals in the brain.


I know it's just chemicals in the brain.
I made no comments implying romantic love is somehow "big" (?), nor romantic relationships,
merely that neither is synonymous with sex.

MCalavera wrote:
I was actually serious about consensual f***ing implying sexual/romantic love. That's why they call it "make love".

Well that's just silly. Millions of people around the world f*ck every day, and the next day, and the next, who are not in love,
and to people who are familiar with the term at all, "making love" connotes a very specific TYPE of sex.

Even if all sex meant love,
that would not conversely mean that all love means sex,
which is the point.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 26 Mar 2011, 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Grisha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,336
Location: LA-ish

26 Mar 2011, 7:14 pm

Bethie wrote:
I don't want a romantic relationship with a woman because there are far more differences between men and women than their genitalia. :?
I've never even gotten along with women, the sole exclusion being my mother, and that's because she's evolutionarily-predisposed to tolerate me.


No need to get defensive, I was just genuinely curious as to what you meant - never really considered the non-physical differences between genders in this context before - it's interesting...