Jump to content

Platonic vs. Romantic Affection


Salamander

Recommended Posts

I don’t know if this rightly belongs here or in Q&A, or whether it’s been answered a hundred times before, but I was wondering how people draw the line (if indeed there is one) between platonic and romantic affection.

Basically, I feel that I want to have someone to share my life with, but whenever I try to imagine what that relationship would be like, I imagine myself and this hypothetical person as extremely close (as in basically sharing an existence) best friends, rather than as being romantic partners.

However, when I stop and break it down further, I realise that with sexuality taken out of the equation, I don’t know what distinguishes close friendship from romance. It might be that what I’m imagining IS romantic, from another point of view. So I was wondering if anyone out there has any suggestions for distinguishing between the two. Is there a difference? If there is, is it an either/or thing, or is there a spectrum of different relationship types?

Also, I’m sorry if I’m misusing ‘platonic’ and ‘romantic’ – I’m fairly new to the vocabulary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Doctor Who?

I have had too many people attempt to explain the difference between a relationship and friendship. Most say the difference is sex. I, of course, then say 'take sex out of it'. Then they go on the say something about a connection, but I don't understand. Why can't you have that connection with a great friend? Ugh, whatever, I've given up trying to understand. I want my friends! x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gho St Ory Qwan

I dunno, I don't get romance.

I have had romantic feelings before but I am considering myself aromantic. Those romantic feelings are in a moment, not clearly linked to the person so i guess I'm not romantic.

I have wanted a relationship with a person before but I can't say thats romantic. I'd fulfil the things of a non-sexual relationship that aren't considered right in normal friendships (namely the intimacy level) but that could just be having intimate friendships.

However those people IU wouldn't mind possibly having a family with (this is extremely rare mind you) so I'd say that isn't just a friendship. Just because I don't wanna be the one to have to be penetrated then squeeze one out doesn't make it less of a relationship.

besides many partners lose the romance. Maybe it is just a moment or a few moments?

I get insulted being told asexuals can't have romantic relationships but I can't pinpoint romance for my own relationships personally. And in my opinion most of the relationships around me aren't romantic.

Just because people 'look good together' doesn't mean it's romantic they're together. just means they match like black shoes and white socks. Nothing romantic about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's one distinct line people draw between platonic friendship and a romantic relationship. I think the definition of a romantic relationship varies depending on who you talk to.

Friends are people you feel close to, people who make you happy to be around them, and who feel the same way about you. That's my definition, anyways. However, it might mean something completely different to somebody else. I know some people who consider everybody they've ever met their friend. I know others who limit their friends to those they can tell their deepest, darkest secrets.

The same kind of thinking applies to romantic relationships. For one thing, what happens in a romantic relationship varies a lot from one relationship to the next. Some just like cuddling. Some want sex. Others are content with being each others' best, best friends.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, a romantic relationship is pretty much anything you want it to be. because there's no one set definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Baroness Peron

For me, there is a difference between friendship and romance. But...now that I think about it, the difference is hard to define.

I have a "romantic" friendship with my best friend. We're very snuggly, but more importantly, we've sort of created a world together that exists only for us and that other people don't really understand. We're not very open with each other in a secret-sharing kind of way, but we don't need to be. I think we already know most of each other's secrets just by being around each other for so long. Besides, you can share secrets with anyone, but he and I have a connection that stops just barely short of mind reading. Also, my feelings about our friendship are much deeper than they are for most of my other friends.

But I don't have any of the "exclusivity" issues that are inherent with traditional romantic feelings. I don't begrudge him his boyfriends at all, as long as we still get "our time" and he doesn't do "our stuff" with other people. And I don't think I'd have qualms about romantic friendships with other people, I just haven't met anyone else that I connect like that with.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for me, romance is a combination of a special connection and depth of feeling. If someone doesn't meet those two criteria, then it's regular friendship rather than romantic friendship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gho St Ory Qwan

^ That's what I do consider romance. :wub:

It's not something I think you can actively hunt for though as others [sexual people] imply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew there wasn't going to be a simple answer . . .

"Romantic friendship" is a very nice term - seems to encompass the best of both worlds.

Perhaps this kind of relationship isn't the kind of thing you can actively hunt for (I don't even know how you'd go about looking!), but I suppose there's always the option of hunting passively and hoping . . .

Still, in a way it's nice that there's no set definition of a romantic relationship. At least there's no need to feel compelled to match other people's ideas of how a relationship's supposed to work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that confused me for AGES! :lol:

I feel much the same way, minus the sharing the rest of my life with them part, and I've stopped trying to define it. I would think that our relationship would be so sacred that it would be undefinable. It wouldn't fit cleanly into a neatly marked box of "platonic", "romantic", or "sexual", or anything else. We would just be us, and it's not our problem if our relationship confuses other people or if they can't put a name on it. I would want to be very good friends with the person who is very very dear to me, but it would be something more, and no sex. :lol: If I could narrow it down to the most basic difference, it would be that it is exactly the same as a very, very close friendship, except there would be a deeper physical and emotional intimacy. For example, I wouldn't hold a close platonic friend in the middle of the night while we lie in bed in nothing but our underwear, but I most certainly would if it was someone I was in a romantic relationship with. I would never take a shower with a close palatonic friend, but I might if it was with someone I was in a romantic relationship with. I would never kiss a close platonic friend on the lips, but I probably would if it was someone I was romantic with.

Then again, it all depends on how much physical intimacy (or lack of) that you want in your relationship. I guess some people would say that holding hands isn't necessarily romantic affection, and I'm sure there are also people who would say that being naked with someone is sexual, even if I don't think it is and there's no genital contact involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew there wasn't going to be a simple answer . . .

There is for me. I define romantic vs. platonic affection by the motive behind the action. I have one particular friend who'll hold my hand walking down the street, we hug, we kiss, we can talk for hours when we meet up... And what makes this all purely platonic is that, well, we're not attracted to each other. She's a lesbian, I like guys (right now at least, I switch).

Now, if that kiss on the cheek were more romantic in nature, that person's behaviour would be more romantically orientated - hand on my back as I walk through a door, sitting across from me to maintain eye contact, etc. Tell tale signs that affection might be a more romantic hope than a token of friendship.

Teribly cheesy examples given above but you get the point. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gho St Ory Qwan
I knew there wasn't going to be a simple answer . . .

There is for me. I define romantic vs. platonic affection by the motive behind the action. I have one particular friend who'll hold my hand walking down the street, we hug, we kiss, we can talk for hours when we meet up... And what makes this all purely platonic is that, well, we're not attracted to each other. She's a lesbian, I like guys (right now at least, I switch).

Now, if that kiss on the cheek were more romantic in nature, that person's behaviour would be more romantically orientated - hand on my back as I walk through a door, sitting across from me to maintain eye contact, etc. Tell tale signs that affection might be a more romantic hope than a token of friendship.

Teribly cheesy examples given above but you get the point. :rolleyes:

Quite a lot of my friends do this. I don't consider them particularly romantic. I do sometimes get a horrid vibe and avoid physical proximity occasionally because of it with some people whom I'm platonic with so perhaps they have romantic vibes that I'm vaguely picking up on... Otherwise even teachers used to do some of those things (no kissing but most the rest aha).

I agree with the motive to an extent but personally when I feel slightly romantic there is no hidden motive. I just want to be close to the person and kind to them. Which is the same as if I do it to a friend anyway. So while that may work with some people it doesn't with me.

And I used to put that down to the fact most 'motives' are sexual ultimately. So a second question; what romantic motives would asexuals' have? To anyone feeling they can answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a definitive answer to this but some indicators of friendship are trust, enjoying the same things, sharing a sense of humour and feeling totally comfortable being yourself knowing that they know you enough that it won't affect the friendship.

Where as a romantic partner is someone you feel close to and don't want to lose, so much so that you might hold back your feelings, especially if you're a guy. Couples go on about having to keep the romance alive and that it takes effort. To me a real friendship is one that is effortless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gho St Ory Qwan

I don't have a definitive answer to this but some indicators of friendship are trust, enjoying the same things, sharing a sense of humour and feeling totally comfortable being yourself knowing that they know you enough that it won't affect the friendship.

Where as a romantic partner is someone you feel close to and don't want to lose, so much so that you might hold back your feelings, especially if you're a guy. Couples go on about having to keep the romance alive and that it takes effort. To me a real friendship is one that is effortless.

Romance is effort? It can't be natural!

I knew marrying a friend was the right way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective the difference between platonic and romantic affection is basically touch. You can show platonic affection through being thoughtful and emotionally supportive. Romantic affection to me conjures up the notion of being tactile with another individual in addition to the platonic affection.

For me, there is a difference between friendship and romance. But...now that I think about it, the difference is hard to define.

I have a "romantic" friendship with my best friend. We're very snuggly, but more importantly, we've sort of created a world together that exists only for us and that other people don't really understand. We're not very open with each other in a secret-sharing kind of way, but we don't need to be. I think we already know most of each other's secrets just by being around each other for so long. Besides, you can share secrets with anyone, but he and I have a connection that stops just barely short of mind reading. Also, my feelings about our friendship are much deeper than they are for most of my other friends.

But I don't have any of the "exclusivity" issues that are inherent with traditional romantic feelings. I don't begrudge him his boyfriends at all, as long as we still get "our time" and he doesn't do "our stuff" with other people. And I don't think I'd have qualms about romantic friendships with other people, I just haven't met anyone else that I connect like that with.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for me, romance is a combination of a special connection and depth of feeling. If someone doesn't meet those two criteria, then it's regular friendship rather than romantic friendship.

I find that description so beautiful! It seems like exactly the sort of thing that a lot of hetero romantics dream about. It even prompted me to google the term romantic friendship ^^ Wikipedia comes back with something interesting:

The term romantic friendship refers to a very close but non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in modern Western societies, and may include for example holding hands, cuddling, and sharing a bed.

I had this with one of my exs for awhile until the introduction of sex kinda ruined it :/ I would love to cultivate another romantic friendship in my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find someone who you love on a romantic level who is also a friend who shares that same world that is just yours then you've found the one that I'd call a soulmate.

Friend + romance = soulmate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there is a difference between friendship and romance. But...now that I think about it, the difference is hard to define.

I have a "romantic" friendship with my best friend. We're very snuggly, but more importantly, we've sort of created a world together that exists only for us and that other people don't really understand. We're not very open with each other in a secret-sharing kind of way, but we don't need to be. I think we already know most of each other's secrets just by being around each other for so long. Besides, you can share secrets with anyone, but he and I have a connection that stops just barely short of mind reading. Also, my feelings about our friendship are much deeper than they are for most of my other friends.

But I don't have any of the "exclusivity" issues that are inherent with traditional romantic feelings. I don't begrudge him his boyfriends at all, as long as we still get "our time" and he doesn't do "our stuff" with other people. And I don't think I'd have qualms about romantic friendships with other people, I just haven't met anyone else that I connect like that with.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for me, romance is a combination of a special connection and depth of feeling. If someone doesn't meet those two criteria, then it's regular friendship rather than romantic friendship.

I knew there wasn't going to be a simple answer . . .

There is for me. I define romantic vs. platonic affection by the motive behind the action. I have one particular friend who'll hold my hand walking down the street, we hug, we kiss, we can talk for hours when we meet up... And what makes this all purely platonic is that, well, we're not attracted to each other. She's a lesbian, I like guys (right now at least, I switch).

Now, if that kiss on the cheek were more romantic in nature, that person's behaviour would be more romantically orientated - hand on my back as I walk through a door, sitting across from me to maintain eye contact, etc. Tell tale signs that affection might be a more romantic hope than a token of friendship.

Teribly cheesy examples given above but you get the point. :rolleyes:

I'm finding myself agreeing mostly with these two posts, and definitely don't believe that without sex there are only platonic relations. Even so, i do feel a lot of love towards many of my friends, and there is some associated affection but not in a romantic sense. Most things concluded about romance are those cheesy things like flowers and chocolates and moon lit serenades; which are fine if you are into that but in my understanding it's much more than that, it's a feeling you get, which may or may not be warm and fuzzy. Can i describe this feeling? No.

So there you have it; clear as mud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Friend + romance = soulmate?

Friend + romance = romance.

Romance over the course of a life time together = soulmate? (I'm not sure how to display this mathematically...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a very very blurry line.

i thought i had a romantic relationship with my first boyfriend, but it was really more platonic than anything. we're still friends now, but we don't have the title of "boyfriend/girlfriend" hanging over our heads. i care about him deeply though, and want him in my life. but i am not romantically attracted to him anymore.

in the relationship i have now, there is definite romantic attraction. it's hard to explain. we do things that my friends wouldn't do, for one (kissing, snuggling, etc). but also i feel completely comfortable with him, and i trust him immensely. i hate being away from him, and i love that he is rather "old fashioned romantic". i can't explain it well, but i know from these two relationships what romantic attraction is to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize this thread's been dead for a few days, but it's still on the first page and I've been thinking about this rather a lot. I'd like some feedback. I'll apologize now; I'm sure it won't be articulate at all.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that romantic and platonic relationships can't be strictly defined because they're not inherently different. They're different spots on the same spectrum. (I'm sorry if someone else has already said this; I'm promise I'm not trying to steal your spotlight.) I don't think exclusivity or physical intimacy or any such single aspect of a relationship can define whether it's romantic or platonic, because those will vary from person to person and couple to couple. Myself, for example: I don't care how close I might get to someone, I would never have any sort of physical intimacy because my own body (and certain aspects of human bodies in general) just disgusts me and I could never be comfortable with it. Does that mean I couldn't have a romantic relationship with someone?

It seems to me that there are a lot of different pieces that define a relationship, and, though one piece (whether or not there is sex) has its own special term (sexual relationship), to try to term every other piece would be futile. I suppose we could say that a romantic relationship is one involving traditional elements of romance like flowers, candy, whatever, but that's all just cultural nonsense and doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think that's how most people have been using the term "romantic attraction." It makes more sense to look at the levels of all the elements of a relationship (with their maximums defined by the limits of the people involved) to determine how close the relationship is overall, with, I suppose, romantic being further along than platonic, because the word "romantic," to me at least, implies a greater commitment. If commitment is the right word. So romantic and platonic are distinctions that will vary depending on the people involved. So far as I can figure.

What this means in all practical senses, I have no idea. I have no relationship wisdom to share but rather, at the moment, a whole lot of confusion.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for me, romance is a combination of a special connection and depth of feeling. If someone doesn't meet those two criteria, then it's regular friendship rather than romantic friendship.

But "depth of feeling" is relative, and what does "special connection" mean? I'm seeing phrases like these all over the place and I don't understand them. If someone could give me a concrete, objective definition of such things, it would help quite a lot. If I'm feeling something, and I've never felt anything before, how do I know whether it's that "special connection," and to the right "depth"?

I knew there wasn't going to be a simple answer . . .

There is for me. I define romantic vs. platonic affection by the motive behind the action. I have one particular friend who'll hold my hand walking down the street, we hug, we kiss, we can talk for hours when we meet up... And what makes this all purely platonic is that, well, we're not attracted to each other. She's a lesbian, I like guys (right now at least, I switch).

Now, if that kiss on the cheek were more romantic in nature, that person's behaviour would be more romantically orientated - hand on my back as I walk through a door, sitting across from me to maintain eye contact, etc. Tell tale signs that affection might be a more romantic hope than a token of friendship.

Teribly cheesy examples given above but you get the point. :rolleyes:

No, I'm afraid I don't get the point. How can you determine whether a kiss is romantic or platonic in nature if you can't solidly define romance and friendship without using the kiss as an example? What you've said there makes about as much sense to me as looking in a dictionary and seeing, "Romance: a situation in which two people are romantically attracted to each other." I'm sorry if I'm just missing something that's terribly obvious to everyone else.

So there you have it; clear as mud.

Yes, exactly.

Friend + romance = soulmate?

Friend + romance = romance.

Romance over the course of a life time together = soulmate? (I'm not sure how to display this mathematically...)

How about this?

Lim(t-->(infinity))R(x,y)=soulmates

Where t is time spent together, and R is the romantic relationship as defined by x and y, the people in the relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this?

Lim(t-->(infinity))R(x,y)=soulmates

Where t is time spent together, and R is the romantic relationship as defined by x and y, the people in the relationship.

I love this! (But I am studying physics.)

Sojourner, I think you've articulated a lot of the questions I have about the whole thing, including the point about physical contact. I don't much like being touched (I don't object too much any more, but I used to absolutely hate it), but I don't think that that devalues any relationships I might have.

Flowers, chocolate etc probably are a good indicator of romance, or are at least society's markers of it, but that doesn't preclude a romantic relationship where people don't go in for that kind of thing, or a platonic one where they do.

Personally, I don't see that platonic and romantic affection have any less depth than each other. (Which is why I'm having trouble telling the difference.) I can imagine people defining themselves as friends rather than partners within a relationship that has all the emotional depth of a romance.

I'm probably just reiterating other people's points here.

As was definitely said earlier: clear as mud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stick my quick two cents in here.

For me I define the difference between platonic and romantic by asking the question "How would I feel if this person were in a romantic relationship with someone else?" Sometimes I might even include asking how I would feel if that person were in a sexual relationship with someone else.

It may sound childish, but I've found that if I give myself a chance to be jealous or possessive I will only do it over people i have romantic feelings for. And asking that question of myself will certainly bring out the answer.

If I can't stomach the thought of them being with someone else, I'm romantically attracted. If it doesn't factor in, it's platonic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Gho St Ory Qwan

I'll stick my quick two cents in here.

For me I define the difference between platonic and romantic by asking the question "How would I feel if this person were in a romantic relationship with someone else?" Sometimes I might even include asking how I would feel if that person were in a sexual relationship with someone else.

It may sound childish, but I've found that if I give myself a chance to be jealous or possessive I will only do it over people i have romantic feelings for. And asking that question of myself will certainly bring out the answer.

If I can't stomach the thought of them being with someone else, I'm romantically attracted. If it doesn't factor in, it's platonic.

This again relies on an understanding of what a 'romantic relationship' is to determine the meaning of a romantic feeling. It doesn't answer much to other people.

I myself am not prone to jealousy and would prefer someone be happy with another than sad with me. I am sure that could be considered romantic to some. It is also universal for any kind of positive relationship; so couldn't be purely a romantic thing in itself. Once again there is the same problem. I think the comments just above are summing this up nicely though. I agree that things are definitely on a spectrum. This explains why things can change over time too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, when I stop and break it down further, I realise that with sexuality taken out of the equation, I don’t know what distinguishes close friendship from romance. It might be that what I’m imagining IS romantic, from another point of view. So I was wondering if anyone out there has any suggestions for distinguishing between the two. Is there a difference? If there is, is it an either/or thing, or is there a spectrum of different relationship types?

teach.gif

Romantic relationships are distinguished from friendships, even close ones, by mutual physical attraction and/or the presence of a much stronger emotional bond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

teach.gif

Romantic relationships are distinguished from friendships, even close ones, by mutual physical attraction and/or the presence of a much stronger emotional bond.

I'd be inclined to disagree with this - you see, I kind of fantasise about finding someone who'd be my best friend and who I'd understand totally and be prepared to give up everything for without a second thought (Thelma and Louise style), but I really can't picture thinking of this person as my 'partner' in anything other than a "we fight crime together" sort of way. Surely there's nothing stopping a platonic bond being as strong as a romantic one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sort of the reason I identify as aromantic, because I really don't understand the difference. I've never wanted really to kiss someone or be affectionate with them past maybe holding hands, and I can't imagine calling anyone my girlfriend or my boyfriend. I think that's where the difference is, that you want something "more", even if it's just to refer to them as your significant other or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...