Jump to content


Photo

Platonic and Romantic Love


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
7 replies to this topic

#1 tenmoremiles

tenmoremiles

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:01 PM

Basically the topic description. Is the latter just a stronger version of the former? Or is there something different, something more? What's the difference between a 'friend' and a 'lover'? Both involve emotional closeness. If we define 'romantic' love as a close emotional attachment to someone else that involves caring for the wellbeing of that someone else, but doesn't necessarily involve lust or sexual desire doesn't that define platonic love as well?

It's really confusing.

#2 5_♦♣

5_♦♣

    Asexy & Precise Timenerd

  • AVEN Members
  • 25,178 posts
  • Gender:Woman
  • A/Sexuality:Polyamorous hetero A

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:20 PM

When I was on tumblr, I saw this graph of different types of love. Romantic love has intimacy and passion, but no commitment. Platonic aka companionate love has intimacy and commitment, but no passion.

Here it is.
Posted Image

For cars she couldn't care less. Fastidious and precise-Queen.  

 

"Without death all we have are random events, accumlation. You can't call that life"-CC.

 

Also known as: 5DC, 5, DC, DCC, Diamond(s), Club(s), CC, C2, CCCD, CD, CoD, 5d, 5oD, Clubsie, Clubbles.

 

Call me Cookie and you die-Me paraphrasing Dot somewhat.

 


#3 starrynight

starrynight

    Colorless Green Ideas

  • Project Team
  • 3,020 posts
  • Gender:A concept I don't get
  • Pronouns:She
  • Location:John Galt Line
  • A/Sexuality:Asexual, polyamorous, relationship anarchist

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

I know that triangular model of love AceofClubs talked about. I think the "romantic love" defined in that model may be a little different from the "romantic love" we usually talk about though. When people talk about "romantic love" in general, it's not necessarily without commitment. I do think passion is a major feature of romantic love, but in the triangular model, passion is connected to limerence and sexual attraction, so it may be a little tricky for asexuals who don't experience sexual attraction. You may want to check out the term limerence.

As for "What's the difference between a 'friend' and a 'lover'? ", this question has been discussed a lot on AVEN. For sexuals, they can draw the line at sexual desire, but for many asexuals, the line between friends and lovers is very blurry. But isn't it wonderful to embrace a whole spectrum of relationships, rather than a rigid "friend vs. lover" binary? :)

To say "I love you" one must know first how to say the "I." 
 - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
 
 
... one of the most evil consequences of mysticism—in terms of human suffering—is the belief that love is a matter of “the heart,” not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy. Love is the expression of philosophy—of a subconscious philosophical sum—and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately.
 - Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto

 


#4 Kitty Spoon Train

Kitty Spoon Train

    Champion of the Frozen Wastes

  • AVEN Members
  • 2,954 posts
  • Gender:Cis-genderless (bio male)
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • A/Sexuality:Heteroromantic / Grey Area / Relationship Anarchist

Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:19 AM

This has been doing my head in ever since I learned about my demisexuality last year...

Until then, I guess I sort of assumed that sexual desire is what defines the difference. eg. When I got very involved with girls, and eventually got sexually attracted to them, that sense of erotic passion was my defining point of the feelings being "romantic". But then, last year, I developed a huge non-sexual attraction to a friend. This, along with looking back at some other issues from my previous relationship experience - and then figuring out that I've actually been demisexual all along - really made me realise that it's not that simple.

I honestly believe that a big portion of the "difference" is artificial and socially conditioned. There are maybe some markers which seemingly clearly define the difference between friendship and romance for large chunks of the population, but I don't think there is any universal clear-cut "essence" there which all humans can ever agree on.

Personally, if I step away and try to completely forget about categories - and then look back and re-apply them, I find the following: I'm hetero-demisexual, so my feelings for guys are 100% what society would call "platonic". But when it comes to girls, pretty much ALL my female friendships are potentially slightly romantic. But the thing is, I don't believe this has to be threatening or confusing to anyone. Maybe in the sexual world it's different because of the potentially predatory and raw nature of sexual lust, I really can't say though.

I think for me, the difference basically comes down to: "Would it feel icky to get all tender and cuddly and kissy with the person?" - if yes, then that qualifies as something close to what society would call "'just' a friend". If not, then it's potentially somewhere on the spectrum towards "romantic". But it's hardly a clear-cut and absolute thing. But the way society treats romantic relationships - where they're all tied up with the idea of exclusive lifetime pair bonds/marriage - it's hard to be flexible about the "romantic" category for a lot of people.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."

     - Oscar Wilde


#5 RandomGirlK

RandomGirlK

    Mitosis to the Max

  • AVEN Members
  • 323 posts
  • Location:UK
  • A/Sexuality:Asexual

Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:25 PM

The way I seperated my platonic feelings for my friends from the romantic feelings I have when I have a crush on someone was to imagine us as a couple. I imagined how I would feel in a situation where they told me that they had feelings for me, and I liked that idea. I also imagined me kissing them, and I really liked that idea.

#6 _Dee_

_Dee_

    Amoeba

  • AVEN Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:16 PM

I'm starting to give up on drawing a line, since I've never seen a definite answer to this that made sense to me.

When I was on tumblr, I saw this graph of different types of love. Romantic love has intimacy and passion, but no commitment. Platonic aka companionate love has intimacy and commitment, but no passion.

Here it is.
Posted Image


What exactly is passion, then?

#7 5_♦♣

5_♦♣

    Asexy & Precise Timenerd

  • AVEN Members
  • 25,178 posts
  • Gender:Woman
  • A/Sexuality:Polyamorous hetero A

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:22 PM

A soap that aired in the late '90s but was canceled a few years ago. Seriously though, it's basically strong, barely controllable emotion, which may or may not be sexual in nature. Also means strong enthusiasm.

For cars she couldn't care less. Fastidious and precise-Queen.  

 

"Without death all we have are random events, accumlation. You can't call that life"-CC.

 

Also known as: 5DC, 5, DC, DCC, Diamond(s), Club(s), CC, C2, CCCD, CD, CoD, 5d, 5oD, Clubsie, Clubbles.

 

Call me Cookie and you die-Me paraphrasing Dot somewhat.

 


#8 Sir Robbins

Sir Robbins

    King Ace

  • AVEN Members
  • 153 posts
  • Location:On the quest for the Holy Grail
  • A/Sexuality:Romantic without sex

Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:11 PM

physical pleasure (particularly sex) is a distraction from a spiritual and emotional connection (as I feel) and believe strictly in Platonic and Romantic love. I wish for a romantic friend but nothing more




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users