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

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: