Sometimes it&#39;s better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness

Either is fine with me. :-)

From:

kwakhed.livejournal.com

i see someone (or ones) already hit most of the points i wanted to hit... that romantic love is more than platonic love + hormones... and even if that is subjective, what else is there? does one live in one's own mind, or someone else's? there's very little room for objectivity with emotions that are this personal...

i think there's a matter of thinking of the mind as a cpu, and after that, who is getting the most cycles... generally, someone i am romantically involved with -- either actively or pondering involvement -- gets far more of my brain cpu time than someone i don't consider in such a way... this doesn't mean i shut out platonic friends, or set them to a lower nice level -- it's just brain patterns assuming a shape of minimum energy, and there just happens to be a BIG influx of energy associated with one person... from that analogy, it's why polyamory doesn't work for me -- i get very confused if there's more than one strong energy source bending the fabric of my mind... i tend to act badly in such situations...

From:

I love your analogy about the CPU cycles--I even repeated it already (though, sadly, I wans't thinking and mentioned it to someone who doesn't know what a CPU is; I'll have to try harder next time). Yet again, technology makes a good metaphor for an otherwise-confusing part of my life! :-)

From:

Nope.

From:

I think it's a matter of kind. You can have incredibly deep platonic love, just as you can have incredibly deep romantic love. I have a couple of friends -- not many, but they exist -- whom I care for as deeply as I've ever cared for anyone, or ever will care for anyone I think. But that doesn't mean I have any interest in sleeping with them or living with them or marrying them. [For the record, this is why I dislike Frodo/Sam slash; I don't think that all love has to result in romantic or sexual love.]

From:

I have a couple of friends -- not many, but they exist -- whom I care for as deeply as I've ever cared for anyone, or ever will care for anyone I think. But that doesn't mean I have any interest in sleeping with them or living with them or marrying them.

But does you not wanting to sleep with them change your love for them?

I don't think it does. Lust is not an alteration to love, but an add on.

Its like asking if a G&T with a lemon (as well as a lime) is a change in degree of kind from a G&T with just a lime. Its not. Both are G&Ts (kind) both can be equally strong (degree). The lemon does not alter the G&T in any way, but is an addition to it - the G&T remains the same.

IN the same way, platonic love, and romantic love are all love. Both are the same in kind, and both can be the same in degree. The romantic love just has an extra lemon (lust) added on.

From:

I think there's more difference than just lust, though. I've felt lust for purely platonic friends before (though not acted on it), but that didn't make me feel romantic love for them. Not in the same way I've felt romantic love the two times I consider myself to have been in love, anyway. It was a very different sensation.

From:

I would posit that it only SEEMS that way.

Sex tends to confuse people. If they sleep with somebody, it tends to make them think that there's somethign more (likewise, many people confuse strong emotions of love for lust)

had you acted on your lust for those platonic friends, you might have looked at it differently, might have felt romantically inclined - had you allowed it to go further.

Of course though, there's more than just love+lust=romance. Its a complicated mixture, romance is. But just as there's more to bread than flour and yeast, the flour remains the same if you're using it for bread or for matzah. the results will be very different depending on the other ingredients, but the flour remains the same. So too with love. The results may be different depending on what else you put into the mix, but the love remains the same.

From:

I would posit that it only SEEMS that way.

When it's a matter of emotions, what else matters?

From:

Sometimes emotions (and hormones) cloud the truths of things.

From:

I'd argue there is only subjective truth with emotion. Either you feel something for someone, or you don't. Either you like broccoli, or you don't. Either you get pissed off at the people driving 20 miles an hour in front of you in the left lane, or you don't. None of those changes the personality of the other person, the molecular structure of broccoli, or the fact that someone in front of you is driving too slowly, but they change how they feature in your reality. And that's all there is, 24/7, for a whole lifetime for each of us.

From:

Ahh, but just because you FEEL that the person ahead of you is driving too slowly, doesn't mean that THEY ARE.

Just because in your opinion, broccoli is revolting, doesn't mean that it is.

And just because you feel that love isn't love isn't love, doesn't mean that that is the way.

(after all, if it were, then we're both right, there is no use of searching for truth and c'est la mourir)

(deleted comment)

From:

I hold very little faith in what 'most people' can do (naturally all the people who read your journal are exceptional though)

Things may not be able to be boiled down to irrefutable truths, but they can be brought down to most likely outcomes.

Or we could just argue subjectivity, but there's no point to this debate, love is whatever the individual chooses to feel it is, end of story. ;)

From:

Wait, I've got more actually.

I was thinking about your gin and tonic moment earlier. I think it's more like one is rum and one is vodka, if we're sticking with alcohol analogies. Both are hard liquor, but they taste different, smell different, are different. I'm not, nor have I ever been, denying that both are love. But they can still be different kinds.

From:

Ahh, but that's the catch. rum and vodka are both very different. Yes, they're both hard liquor, but that's no more than saying that love and hate are both strong emotions. They are, but they are entirely differently flavoured.

Platonic Love, and Romantic Love, OTOH, are not as differently flavoured as rum and vodka, I'm sure you'll agree. To the trained palate, they both have the same base (love) but with different ingredients added on. Not enough to make them different drinks (both are G&Ts) but enough that some might prefer the extra lemon.

Love is a complex formulae, more than just the single ingredient of a hard liquor. Love is a cocktail.

From:

kwakhed.livejournal.com

actually, i'm not sure how far apart love and hate are, considering how involved with the subject you have to be emotionally... the very deep knowledge of what makes someone else tick serves as the basis for both... hate needs to be treated as being from the same column on the menu of emotional responses as platonic and romantic love, in my view...

From:

stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com

I agree totally. To me, romantic love is a superset of platonic love (with added feelings I can't describe, but which are distinctive). Lust is a separate feeling, and I can feel lust for people I love in either way (in my case I can only feel lust for those I at least feel the potential for love with...)

From:

And lust can exist independently of love, or romanticism, just like lemons and limes can exist independently of G. And of T.

I personally think there is a whole continuum and range of feelings and circumstances, so it's quite hard to make it as cut-and-dried as platonic vs romantic.

But there are definitely "guys I'd sleep with," "guys I wouldn't sleep with." The "guys I'd fall in love with" category is a subset only of the "sleep with category," but the "guys I wouldn't fall in love with but like as friends" category exists both in "sleep with" and "wouldn't sleep with," depending on the guy. Unfortunately, the "guys I find loathsome" category also overlaps both "sleep with" and "wouldn't sleep with", which is simply poor judgement on my part.

This would be much more clear if I'd used Venn diagrams...

Helga

From:

From the lovely folks at www.venndiagram.com, who actually have an online Venn generator.

Here's the visual aid for my previous comment: OH... the Venny Goodness (http://www.venndiagram.com/detail.lasso?id=1129986319.gif)

Helga

From:

comradexavier.livejournal.com

Umm, I think your Venn diagram, although colorful, isn't accurate. For example, your "Guys I'd sleep with," and "Guys I wouldn't sleep with," circles intersect, producing what logically seems should be "Guys I would and also would not sleep with," but which combination you've labeled, "Guys I wouldn't fall in love with but like as friends."

I've taken the liberty to construct what I believe to be a more accurate representation:

You can damn my love of logic and my hours of free time, if you like.

From:

textivore.livejournal.com

I'm not sure "would fall in love with" is a subset of "would sleep with." I've fallen in love with people I wasn't ready to consumate with, and might never have been. And, of course, for some people, "in love with" MUST preceed "sleep with."

From:

comradexavier.livejournal.com

I didn't mean to imply that this graph holds true for all people; just that it's a better representation of

kalieris's comment above.

You're free to organize your graph however you like. :-)

From:

As Comradexavier said, this just represents my own oddities, and isn't intended to illustrate anyone else's. : ) In my case, I can't have a romantic relationship that doesn't include sex of some kind (the whole "intercourse isn't the only satisfying form of sex" discussion is for another day). Notice I said a *romantic* relationship - I can certainly be very close to someone with whom I'm not sexually intimate, but I don't classify that as a romantic relationship.

Also, I can (quite easily) have romantic feelings for someone I haven't slept with yet or can't sleep with because of the circumstances, so perhaps "in love with" wasn't the most accurate way to put it. "In a romantic relationship with" is probably better, since it implies something that doesn't just exist in my own head.

Helga

From:

I will not damn a thing (except perhaps my lack of caffeination and tendency to be slapdash) - yours is in fact much more accurate. Thank you for putting that together!

Helga

From:

I don't think that all love has to result in romantic or sexual love.

That's just what I think; it irritates me to watch When Harry Met Sally becuase Billy Crystal says men and women can't be friends; the sex part always gets in the way. I disagree, and I think it cheapens friendship to imlpy that it's "just" friendship and that romance is inevitable or, if it's not, the relationship is defective somehow.

From:

paninogirl.livejournal.com

I've been thinking about that line in When Harry Met Sally, especially considering it's one of my favorite movies. I don't think my interpretation is the same as yours, so I'll express what I feel he meant by that line.

I think what Harry meant when he stated that "men and women can't be friends because sex gets in the way" was that once sex is in the picture, it's very hard to go back to what you were as merely platonic friends. For many people, sex is a very intimate, personal, emotionally-attached experience. If two platonic friends were to have sex, but viewed the reasons for doing so and the outcomes of such an encounter differently, then it can change what the friendship becomes.

Harry said that men pretty much "want to nail" every woman they're friends with, attractive or unattractive. (For the record, I'm not stating I agree that all men believe this. I'm simply citing quotations I know pretty well from excessive viewing of the movie. :) ) Therefore, given the opportunity, a man will accept the sexual advances of any woman he's friends with. If the two view the sex differently, it'll get in the way of the friendship they once had. That's why, if you're not fuck buddies, sex gets in the way. It changes the relationship you have. It either makes it something more (you become a couple) or less (you drift because of awkwardness), but it rarely ever stays the same.

Thinking about it now, it probably explains why it's sometimes difficult to be friends with an ex. Crossing the line of physical intimacy, on any level, is, for most, an emotionally connected experience. Once that physical connection ceases, you lose some of the closeness you once shared. In fact, it can sometimes feel violating to even think about or know that the other is engaging in similar instances of physical intimacy that you valued so highly with another person -- and enjoying it. It strains the friendship, and it rarely is ever able to get back to normal. This theory explains why my first two ex-boyfriends struggled to have friendships with me (I began showing interest in other guys before they showed interest in other girls), and why I struggled for some time to finally let go of the past with my most recent ex, whom I was deeply connected to on so many levels.

To close, to answer your question, I agree with what one said about it being based on your own personal experiences, viewpoints, and interpretations. To put such a gross generalization for all to follow is just impossible. I don't think I'll ever find someone who feels exactly as I do about love and relationships, but it's my hope that someday I'll find someone pretty close. :)

From:

I think you and I are indeed approaching this differently. We're looking at it from different perspectives; yours seems to be "the aftermath of making the relationship physical" and mine is "the relationship with no interest in getting physical."

I've had male friends with whom I have never and probably will never want to have sex. And I don't think those relationships are incomplete without sex, or damaged by the omission of sex. Just as I don't see myself having sex with any of my female friends, and don't think I'm missing anything there. This view does not seem incompatible with your "it could be bad to have sex with your friends" position; I agree with all the things you said here.

But I don't know if that's his point, since I don't think he means that sex would actually have to take place to "get in the way." I think he's saying that it's impossible for men (again, I don't know if this is true for real men, I'm just saying what he said) to be friends with women without having the ulterior motive of wanting to sleep with them, and I just do not believe that is true.

From:

paninogirl.livejournal.com

I totally agree with not wanting to have sex with some of your male friends. There are some male friends of mine that I just feel absolutely NO spark with, but enjoy their company.

For that reason, I find it hard to believe that every single male would have ulterior motives with every single one of their female friendships. But, it does make sense that that might have been what Harry was trying to convey in the movie. Still, I don't think it's very true. And even though what I wrote might not have necessarily been what he was trying to say, I still believe it to be true. :)

And it's nice to know someone else also agrees with me. :)

From:

stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com

ABSOLUTELY. About 7 of my 10 closest friends are women. I can only think of 3 women I know I would *consider* sleeping with... you do the maths

From:

parakleta.livejournal.com

A matter of kind in most cases, but one does not exclude the other. Platonic love is more based upon friendship and trust and stuff, whereas, in my experience, romantic love is based more on hormones or pheromones or whatever, and they tend to cloud the mind. I think the best kind of partnership is one where both are present.

I had more to say, but it's all heavily influenced by my views on polyamory, and especially from reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" recently, and you've already read it. Is 'water brother' love platonic or romantic..?

On second thoughts, I think taken in the perspective of "Stranger in a Strange Land" the answer to your question is Mu, though you can use my first answer when considering the question in the classical perspective.

From:

See, Heinlein messes everything up. :-) I've been wondering whether water brother love is platonic or romantic, now, and I think I've decided that to answer the question I'd have to do something I previously said I wasn't doing: agree with

angel_thane. Maybe there isn't a difference in kinds of love.

But we still do choose to display that love differently. There is still the matter of physical attraction (or lack thereof) and what role that plays.

I'm tempted to say that water-brother love has matured or evolved past the classifications we use... which sounds good in my head, but I'm not entirely sure what I mean by it. :-)

From:

parakleta.livejournal.com

I think how we choose to display love is based on social acceptability.

As to physical attraction, I think there you are deviating into lust. I guess the trouble comes in extracting social mores from our understanding of these things. Is it even appropriate to try and define them outside of that context.?

I guess I'd be more than happy to fuck anyone I found attractive if I wanted to (excuse my crudeness) get my rocks off. By the same token I think, at least social pressure and indoctrination aside, I'd be more that happy to make love (at least in the sense described by Greg Egan in Distress) with anyone I loved enough to consider 'waterkin', male or female, even though I wouldn't consider myself bisexual or homosexual. In the context of love, physical intimacy is simply another step in the natural progression of things, and involves sharing yourself wholly with someone you care deeply about. Physical attraction becomes irrelevant.

From:

gentleman-lech.livejournal.com

I think it's just a matter of degree. The only difference between a platonic lover and a romantic lover is that you wouldn't marry the platonic one "for love."

From:

There definitely is such a thing as "platonic sex." Hence the term "fuck buddy."

H

From:

gentleman-lech.livejournal.com

I agree. Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Love and sex are two independent things. You don't have to love someone to have sex, and love without sex isn't incomplete.

From:

By defintion there cannot be such a thing as 'platonic sex' Its a contradition in terms. From Websters:

platonic
\Pla*ton"ic\, Platonical \Pla*ton"ic*al\, a. [L. Platonicus, Gr. ?: cf. F. platonique.]
1. Of or pertaining to Plato, or his philosophy, school, or opinions.
2. Pure, passionless; nonsexual; philosophical.

From:

Does that imply that you might marry them for something else? What would it be?

From:

gentleman-lech.livejournal.com

Marriages of convenience happen all the time. Hell, I think half the marriages in Hollywood are designed as publicity stunts. No love there - at least, not as the primary reason for the marriage.

And young people are always getting married just so they don't have an illegitimate child. How many loveless marriages get started that way? Way more than should, that's for certain. I think it's better to have an illegitimate child than it is to have a loveless marriage.

From:

jasonmichaels.livejournal.com

I think it's impossible to define. You can only speak for yourself.

From:

textivore.livejournal.com

Well, speak for yourself then!

From:

jasonmichaels.livejournal.com

There would be no point. It would only apply to me.

From:

tenbaset.livejournal.com

Kind.

But then, I don't think true romantic love can last in the long term without a foundation of platonic love. (Don't know if it has to be there at the start, but I think it has to eventually grow if the relationship is to last.)

From: