18 Dec 2020, 9:57 pm
Pepe wrote:
Obviously, you haven't been following my posts.
I consider platonic luv head and shoulders above romantic luv, which I consider exploitative.
I consider platonic luv head and shoulders above romantic luv, which I consider exploitative.
Who do you take me for? A stalker?!? =o
I replied to what you said directly to me, so no I didn't go back and read anything posted previously.
Pepe wrote:
Alterity wrote:
I specifically said sex there though, because you could always have a relationship with romance and other physical touch but no sex. Such a relationship certainly wouldn't be platonic, and is why sex is not a definer of a romantic relationship.
Not based on the definition of a "romantic relationship".
I did an in-depth study, on relationships.
A romantic relationship necessitates sexual interest/intent.
Who said there is no interest or desire?
For instance: If someone or both people in a relationship becomes no longer capable of the act, for whatever reason, it doesn't mean a desire for it just dries up. The act is just no there.
There are times when there are relationship troubles, where sex is taken off the table for an indefinite time in order to work those issues out. There again there would still be desire and they are still in a romantic relationship.
Pepe wrote:
The purpose, ultimately, of a romantic relationship, ***in evolutionary terms***, is the coupling of two people that are capable of reproducing.
Anything else, ***in evolutionary terms***, is a pleasant distraction.
Anything else, ***in evolutionary terms***, is a pleasant distraction.
Romantic relationships are not necessary for procreation though, only sex is.
But hells bells, thank goodness we're not slaves to such things.
19 Dec 2020, 5:24 am
Alterity wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Obviously, you haven't been following my posts.
I consider platonic luv head and shoulders above romantic luv, which I consider exploitative.
I consider platonic luv head and shoulders above romantic luv, which I consider exploitative.
Who do you take me for? A stalker?!? =o
I replied to what you said directly to me, so no I didn't go back and read anything posted previously.
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, "this morning"?
It was a form of expression which allowed me to make a point.
Alterity wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Alterity wrote:
I specifically said sex there though, because you could always have a relationship with romance and other physical touch but no sex. Such a relationship certainly wouldn't be platonic, and is why sex is not a definer of a romantic relationship.
Not based on the definition of a "romantic relationship".
I did an in-depth study, on relationships.
A romantic relationship necessitates sexual interest/intent.
Who said there is no interest or desire?
For instance: If someone or both people in a relationship becomes no longer capable of the act, for whatever reason, it doesn't mean a desire for it just dries up. The act is just no there.
There are times when there are relationship troubles, where sex is taken off the table for an indefinite time in order to work those issues out. There again there would still be desire and they are still in a romantic relationship.
As I said, if there is sexual interest beyond lust, that qualifies, through definition, as a "Romantic Relationship", if both parties feel the same way.
Alterity wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The purpose, ultimately, of a romantic relationship, ***in evolutionary terms***, is the coupling of two people that are capable of reproducing.
Anything else, ***in evolutionary terms***, is a pleasant distraction.
Anything else, ***in evolutionary terms***, is a pleasant distraction.
Romantic relationships are not necessary for procreation though, only sex is.
But hells bells, thank goodness we're not slaves to such things.
Once again, the desire for sexual intimacy is a necessary part of qualifying a relationship to be romantic, as opposed to platonic.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by ***in evolutionary terms***.
Human consciousness/desire has no involvement.
To gain a better understanding of where you are coming from, may I ask if you are a religious person?
19 Dec 2020, 5:31 am
Rexi wrote:
One can be romantic and asexual. Or sexual and aromantic.
No.
That is platonic luv, by definition.
Platonic luv is the "highest" form of luv there is.
19 Dec 2020, 3:00 pm
19 Dec 2020, 3:01 pm
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
One can be romantic and asexual. Or sexual and aromantic.
No.
That is platonic luv, by definition.
Platonic luv is the "highest" form of luv there is.
Pepe believes in wuv.
19 Dec 2020, 6:16 pm
RightGalaxy wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
One can be romantic and asexual. Or sexual and aromantic.
No.
That is platonic luv, by definition.
Platonic luv is the "highest" form of luv there is.
Pepe believes in wuv.
Sure.
It is a chemical reaction, in the body, that makes people go nutzo.
Blame the evolutionary process.
I have only been in luv twice in my life, and I never will be in romantic luv ever again.
It is a choice, after all.
Platonic luv is a very vague possibility, but I seriously doubt I would ever want to go there again.
Rexi
Veteran
Joined: 3 Sep 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Location: "I know there's nothing we can do. But my heart can't accept it." "If this is real, then I want to change the future."
20 Dec 2020, 2:20 am
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
One can be romantic and asexual. Or sexual and aromantic.
No.
That is platonic luv, by definition.
Platonic luv is the "highest" form of luv there is.
Romantic is not platonic. Platonic isn't the most emotionally and intimately deep, either. Maybe you prefer it, because of how it benefits you emotionally and makes you feel healthier. Trauma can make us not want that depth again, and unresolved personal issues like my codependency.
Need to dust off that fluffy tail a little bit.
'Many asexual people desire and have romantic relationships
An asexual person might not experience sexual attraction, but they might still experience romantic attraction.
An asexual person could be romantically attracted to people of the same gender, people of another gender, or people of multiple genders.'
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-asexual#romantic-relationships
Rexi
Veteran
Joined: 3 Sep 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Location: "I know there's nothing we can do. But my heart can't accept it." "If this is real, then I want to change the future."
20 Dec 2020, 2:32 am
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,889
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
20 Dec 2020, 2:40 am
Rexi
Veteran
Joined: 3 Sep 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Location: "I know there's nothing we can do. But my heart can't accept it." "If this is real, then I want to change the future."
20 Dec 2020, 5:28 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ you mean he becomes your pet forever.
He already is my pet, I think I will move him to the couch, though. Until he learns to use the littlebox.
Pet is no longer enpugh. I want him to be a servant, to bring me flowers and dead mice. Then cuddle with me while we watch tv and I stuff cake into his cheeks.
I think I want a pet fish. *looking intently at the blob*
20 Dec 2020, 6:02 am
Rexi wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
One can be romantic and asexual. Or sexual and aromantic.
No.
That is platonic luv, by definition.
Platonic luv is the "highest" form of luv there is.
Romantic is not platonic. Platonic isn't the most emotionally and intimately deep, either. Maybe you prefer it, because of how it benefits you emotionally and makes you feel healthier.
Platonic luv is more for rational people, like myself, seriously.
I find emotions difficult/annoying.
I focus on emotional stability, rather than chasing down "bliss" wherever I can, hence, I have never taken recreational drugs.
There aren't many like me around.
I don't think I have ever met one, not that I am desperately looking.
Rexi wrote:
Trauma can make us not want that depth again, and unresolved personal issues like my codependency.
Tell me about it.
I can't believe I went nutzo.
I will never let that happen to me again.
Rexi wrote:
Need to dust off that fluffy tail a little bit.
You can dust anything I have, whenever you like.
You are a breath of fresh air.
I hope you stick around.
Rexi wrote:
'Many asexual people desire and have romantic relationships
An asexual person might not experience sexual attraction, but they might still experience romantic attraction.
An asexual person might not experience sexual attraction, but they might still experience romantic attraction.
Let's just agree to disagree, here.
Rexi wrote:
An asexual person could be romantically attracted to people of the same gender, people of another gender, or people of multiple genders.'
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-asexual#romantic-relationships
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-asexual#romantic-relationships
I disagree with that article.
I prefer this one:
Quote:
It's important to distinguish: romantic love (also known as romance) has a more specific meaning, and refers to “intense attraction that involves the idealization of the other, within an ***erotic*** context, with the expectation of enduring for some time into the future.”1 In today’s
Quote:
1. Romantic love as an evolutionary adaptation.
Let me start with one of the less romantic views of romantic love, which suggests love is a product of forces that increase the chances of passing on one’s genes to future generations.
Let me start with one of the less romantic views of romantic love, which suggests love is a product of forces that increase the chances of passing on one’s genes to future generations.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... antic-love
The purpose of luv, from an evolutionary standpoint, is a bonding process to achieve procreation.
Rexi
Veteran
Joined: 3 Sep 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Location: "I know there's nothing we can do. But my heart can't accept it." "If this is real, then I want to change the future."
20 Dec 2020, 6:32 am
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
One can be romantic and asexual. Or sexual and aromantic.
No.
That is platonic luv, by definition.
Platonic luv is the "highest" form of luv there is.
Romantic is not platonic. Platonic isn't the most emotionally and intimately deep, either. Maybe you prefer it, because of how it benefits you emotionally and makes you feel healthier.
Platonic luv is more for rational people, like myself, seriously.
I find emotions difficult/annoying.
I focus on emotional stability, rather than chasing down "bliss" wherever I can, hence, I have never taken recreational drugs.
There aren't many like me around.
I don't think I have ever met one, not that I am desperately looking.
Rexi wrote:
Trauma can make us not want that depth again, and unresolved personal issues like my codependency.
Tell me about it.
I can't believe I went nutzo.
I will never let that happen to me again.
Rexi wrote:
Need to dust off that fluffy tail a little bit.
You can dust anything I have, whenever you like.
You are a breath of fresh air.
I hope you stick around.
Rexi wrote:
'Many asexual people desire and have romantic relationships
An asexual person might not experience sexual attraction, but they might still experience romantic attraction.
An asexual person might not experience sexual attraction, but they might still experience romantic attraction.
Let's just agree to disagree, here.
Rexi wrote:
An asexual person could be romantically attracted to people of the same gender, people of another gender, or people of multiple genders.'
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-asexual#romantic-relationships
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-asexual#romantic-relationships
I disagree with that article.
I prefer this one:
Quote:
It's important to distinguish: romantic love (also known as romance) has a more specific meaning, and refers to “intense attraction that involves the idealization of the other, within an ***erotic*** context, with the expectation of enduring for some time into the future.”1 In today’s
Quote:
1. Romantic love as an evolutionary adaptation.
Let me start with one of the less romantic views of romantic love, which suggests love is a product of forces that increase the chances of passing on one’s genes to future generations.
Let me start with one of the less romantic views of romantic love, which suggests love is a product of forces that increase the chances of passing on one’s genes to future generations.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... antic-love
The purpose of luv, from an evolutionary standpoint, is a bonding process to achieve procreation.
But I will agree to agree! It's evolutionary and it's for the social purposes and procreation, but it can have multiple dimensions. Some people lack some of the branches, that's why they are necessary to be distinguished.
It wasn't explained accurately for the people who do not experience sexual attraction but have romantic feelings, crushes.
The definition should have changed from the middle ages, now it has become spiritual and a holiday. Art form.
It's because we are very emotional why we are not happy being trapped in intense emotions and hardship to escape. Not because we are cerebral. The fear of not evolving and not being able to change our life is not cerebral either. After many tries it might seem smart to give up because the chances may be slim but then why do you think the only limit we have is what we set ourselves up for thinking? Being tired is understandable and not wanting to risk. It can be very horrible to date. It can destroy minds, bodies, futures if we aren't careful and quick to decide and assess. The mind of an aspie is a scary place.
Just like platonic love, relationships can be and some are happy and healthy. Unhealthy ones give lessons to learn and maybe some satisfactory memories and reached goals.
20 Dec 2020, 6:54 pm
Rexi wrote:
So I think based on your explanation when you were romancing me and confessing your feelings what you meant was sexual, by talking about romance. You do realize you can't get away with such misleading poetry, do you?
Take responsibility, Mr Pew, and buy me a Raffaello cake, then become my servant forever.
Take responsibility, Mr Pew, and buy me a Raffaello cake, then become my servant forever.
I will buy you anything you want, within reason.
But I was never romancing you.
I was flirting with you.
You can do much better than a stuffy old skunk.
20 Dec 2020, 7:01 pm
Rexi wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ you mean he becomes your pet forever.
He already is my pet, I think I will move him to the couch, though. Until he learns to use the littlebox.
Pet is no longer enpugh. I want him to be a servant, to bring me flowers and dead mice. Then cuddle with me while we watch tv and I stuff cake into his cheeks.
I think I want a pet fish. *looking intently at the blob*
I'm am happy to do the grunt work, in bringing you flowers, rubbing your feet, and snuggling into your cleavage, but I am an animal luver and don't kill mice.
A will make an exception with the blobfish, however.
Do you have a filleting knife handy?
Blubbery sushi, anyone?
Rexi
Veteran
Joined: 3 Sep 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Location: "I know there's nothing we can do. But my heart can't accept it." "If this is real, then I want to change the future."
20 Dec 2020, 7:19 pm
Pepe wrote:
Rexi wrote:
So I think based on your explanation when you were romancing me and confessing your feelings what you meant was sexual, by talking about romance. You do realize you can't get away with such misleading poetry, do you?
Take responsibility, Mr Pew, and buy me a Raffaello cake, then become my servant forever.
Take responsibility, Mr Pew, and buy me a Raffaello cake, then become my servant forever.
I will buy you anything you want, within reason.
But I was never romancing you.
I was flirting with you.
You can do much better than a stuffy old skunk.
Too late, the Worship Contract is signed.
Pepe wrote:
Secondly, you have spoiled me.
I only have eyes for you, now.
If I can't have you, then I will accept that, but I don't want anyone else.
I will worship you from afar.
And the unrequited feelings are out
Pepe wrote:
Where I come from, it is called spirituality, not being lusty.
It is unrequited luv, pure and chaste without lust.
Give me a quest, dearest, so I can show you the depth of feelings towards you.
Your punishment awaits, you have failed the quest.
Tonight you will be playing Buttercup from Powerpuff Girls, as a catgirl.
Purr & fly now, mon amour
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Lack of network |
Yesterday, 12:46 pm |
| My lack of understanding jokes |
18 Apr 2024, 9:03 pm |
| Fire Emblem's lack of memorable villains |
27 Feb 2024, 7:35 pm |
| Feeling lack of support navigating financial aid |
03 Apr 2024, 6:38 pm |
