-->
@coal
Romantic - you are having sex.Platonic - you are not having sex.
That.
Is it Racist to Not Date a Particular Race?
Posts
Total:
169
-->
@Theweakeredge
What's wrong about it?
-->
@coal
You can have a romantic relationship without sex or any sexual attraction- that's whats wrong about it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure I buy that. I've heard asexuals make similar claims, and to each their own.
Almost no one is asexual, though. And in general terms, sex is the difference between romantic and platonic relationships.
There are exceptions (e.g., friends with benefits) but they're not the norm.
-->
@coal
The fact that something highly correlates does not mean that one can exist without the other - I am not arguing that it is always the case - typically romantic relationships are inherently intertwined with sexual ones, I am not denying that - I am simply reminding people that because something is true with the majority of people that does not mean it is the case. It is generally true that humans are naturally inclined towards empathy, but this does not mean it is always the case.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sounds like you agree with what I said then ...
-->
@coal
You distinguished romantic relationships from platonic relationships by sex, but romantic relationships can happen even without sexual attraction, so clearly that isn't true. In other words, no, I don't quite agree with you.
-->
@Theweakeredge
But in terms of generalities, it seems like you agree with me.
-->
@coal
Sure - but that's not really what I'm getting at here - its like this:
IF people can have romantic relationships without sexual attraction, THEN having sexual attraction does not separate a platonic relationship from a romantic one
In other words, you can have sexual attraction towards someone you love platonically, hell, you can have sex with that person and still only be in a platonic love, so clearly the vague act of having sex never separates a romantic relationship from a platonic relationship - if we were talking about the state of correlation regarding most romantic relationships, then yes, absolutely, but I was responding to what you said differentiated romantic and platonic relationships.
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF people can have romantic relationships without sexual attraction, THEN having sexual attraction does not separate a platonic relationship from a romantic one
In terms of absolutes, yes.
In terms of generalities, no.
I thought we established that?
-->
@coal
No - sex does not separate a platonic relationship from a romantic one - ever - I was agreeing that sex and romantic relationships often correlate, nothing more.
Wait, am I the only one that brings paint swatches on first dates? 0_0
Awkward.....
-->
@Theweakeredge
The difference is that in one instance, their is sexual desire fueling possessiveness, and the other simply desire for them - as a person in all - while the latter can also be attuned to the former, that is the basic answer.
So how is this desire for a person, as a person, different from a platonic relationship? Is it your argument that in platonic relationships, one cannot desire a person for themselves? If the desire for a person in a non-sexual relationship is strictly asexual, then how is that any different from being (close) friends? Can one not be possessive over a friend?
You distinguished romantic relationships from platonic relationships by sex, but romantic relationships can happen even without sexual attraction, so clearly that isn't true. In other words, no, I don't quite agree with you.
You haven't necessarily demonstrated this--not with sufficient reasoning, anyway.
In other words, you can have sexual attraction towards someone you love platonically, hell, you can have sex with that person and still only be in a platonic love, so clearly the vague act of having sex never separates a romantic relationship from a platonic relationship - if we were talking about the state of correlation regarding most romantic relationships, then yes, absolutely, but I was responding to what you said differentiated romantic and platonic relationships.
Except the argument isn't that (casual) sexual relationships are necessarily romantic; the argument is that romantic relationships are necessarily sexual. And note that the same research you cite which states that there's a distinction between sexual romantic relationships and non-sexual romantic relationships also make NO distinction between romantic desire and platonic desire:
Lisa M. Diamond:
Although it may be easy to imagine sexual desire without romantic love, the notion of "pure," "PLATONIC," OR "non-sexual" romantic love is somewhat more controversial.
So I ask once again, how is non-sexual romantic relationships different from platonic relationships?
And just stress the notion, is it possible to be in a non-sexual romantic relationship with someone, who isn't having sex with you, but is having sex with others? Is it possible to be in a romantic relationship with someone's spouse?
Furthermore, when employing "evolutionary psychology" one must understand that the arguments aren't only teleological (and often circular in reasoning) but also primarily based on subconscious motivators, which is in stark contrast to your cited empirical data that suggests conscious motivators. For example, evolutionary psychology would employ arguments such as women being selective in choosing their mates because their capacity to gestate is far scarcer than a man's capacity to inseminate. A woman has up to 400 ova over her lifetime whereas her male counterpart can produce up to 525 billion sperm cells over his lifetime. So picture a scenario where there's a small village of 20 people (10 men and 10 women) and let's state for the sake of argument that this village is feuding with a neighboring village which results in martial conflict. Now if the village of 20 people decides to send out five of their men and five of their women, and they die off, that leaves the village with five prospects of reproduction (the five remaining women.) Now if that same village decides to send out nine men, no women, and the nine men die off, then that leaves the village with 10 prospects of reproduction (this time, 10 women remain.) The lone man in that village can inseminate and fertilize all 10 women.
So what's my point? Do think a woman, or a man, would report this to the American Psychological Society? Your arguments must be consistent. Your previous citation from what I can tell from the preview and abstract is primarily based on the reports of those in so-called "romantic" relationships, yet when it comes to friendship and family you're citing subconscious motivators. Finally, the research you cited was conducted with animals.
-->
@coal
Romantic - you are having sex.Platonic - you are not having sex.
I somewhat agree. Instead of "you're having sex," I would substitute it with "you're 'at least' sexually attracted to the other."
-->
@Athias
You primarily ignored my response to you - and instead responded to a response to another person - which I was responding to a different statement.
The difference is that in one instance, their is sexual desire fueling possessiveness, and the other simply desire for them - as a person in all - while the latter can also be attuned to the former, that is the basic answer.So how is this desire for a person, as a person, different from a platonic relationship? Is it your argument that in platonic relationships, one cannot desire a person for themselves? If the desire for a person in a non-sexual relationship is strictly asexual, then how is that any different from being (close) friends? Can one not be possessive over a friend?
It is the fuel of that possessiveness which matters, not the possessiveness itself - though typically romantic relationships are more often possessive when compared to platonic relationships - as I elaborated in one of my responses which you hardly responded to yourself:
" You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience"
The difference is the possessiveness by experience or personality - romantic love is when possessiveness is borne from the pleasure of another's personality. Next.... I find myself disappointed in your reasoning - the fact that the author is saying such difference is controversial does not mean that they are not separate - that is a non-sequitur - going back to the paper I cited from:
"Although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are fundamentally distinct subjective experiences with distinct neurobiological substrates. " [LINK]
-->
@Theweakeredge
You primarily ignored my response to you
No, I didn't. I even quoted your response. I left out only the part where you were referencing attachment between mother and child.
and [instead] responded to a response to another person - which I was responding to a different statement
Because coal's inquiry and my argument are similar.
It is the fuel of that possessiveness which matters, not the possessiveness itself - though typically romantic relationships are more often possessive when compared to platonic relationships - as I elaborated in one of my responses which you hardly responded to yourself:" You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience"The difference is the possessiveness by experience or personality - romantic love is when possessiveness is borne from the pleasure of another's personality.
So your argument is that the element which distinguishes a platonic relationship from a non-sexual romantic relationship is a possessiveness which is informed by deriving pleasure from the other's personality? That is, a platonic relationship (typically) lacks an affinity, and the pleasure associated with it, for the other's personality?
So if I like/love a friend or family member because his/her personality brings me pleasure, I can characterize our relationship as "romantic"?
Next.... I find myself disappointed in your reasoning - the fact that the author is saying such difference is controversial does not mean that they are not separate - that is a non-sequitur
No, it's how she equates them that informs their not being separate. She uses the discrete conjunction "OR" and thus, I emboldened the relevant part. That means that "pure," "platonic" and "non-sexual" romantic love are interchangeable in her argument. Had she used "and" like I did, then your point would be substantiated. But she used, "or," suggesting that only one could considered and it doesn't matter which.
"Although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are fundamentally distinct subjective experiences with distinct neurobiological substrates."
Once again, the study of these neurobiological substrates were primarily conducted with non-human animals:
Lisa M. Diamond:
Because most research on the neurobiological substrates of sexual desire and affectional [pair] bonding has been conducted with animals, a key priority for future research is systematic investigation of the coordinated biological, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes that shape experiences of love and desire in humans.
-->
@Athias
You derive pleasure from others platonically based on experience or evolutionarily driven - you do not derive "pleasure that informs possessiveness" with nonromantic individuals, pretty simple that. Furthermore, yes it is non-human animals, similar to a vast majority of research done - it's not like humans are the only species with developed frontal lobes and consciousness - furthermore - the concept is what is taken, not specifics - further backing this on.
No... it does not mean that they are "equivalent" it means that they are both controversial in regards to the research - as that is the only part that your argument is highlighting, we call this cherry-picking. Its also interesting that this quote is not from the article itself, but separate - you are, ironically, taking a statement completely out of context and trying to insert a meaning as to what the conjunction means - the mere fact that OR is there does not mean that they are equivalent, they can also mean that they are being COMPARED.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You derive pleasure from others platonically based on experience or evolutionarily driven - you do not derive "pleasure that informs possessiveness" with nonromantic individuals, pretty simple that.
Let's say I have a "best friend" and he's uncomfortable with the notion of my referring to anyone else as my best friend, then does that mean he has romantic feelings towards me?
Furthermore, yes it is non-human animals, similar to a vast majority of research done - it's not like humans are the only species with developed frontal lobes and consciousness - furthermore - the concept is what is taken, not specifics - further backing this on.
You cannot (justifiably) assert that anyone is "wrong" if the sample data doesn't reflect the subject of discussion.
No... it does not mean that they are "equivalent" it means that they are both controversial in regards to the research - as that is the only part that your argument is highlighting, we call this cherry-picking.Its also interesting that this quote is not from the article itself, but separate - you are, ironically, taking a statement completely out of context and trying to insert a meaning as to what the conjunction means - the mere fact that OR is there does not mean that they are equivalent, they can also mean that they are being COMPARED.
No this isn't cherry-picking. This is an issue of grammar. Unless, you're suggesting that the author made a grammatical mistake, then yes, they are equivalent. And is inclusive; OR is discrete. If that hasn't convinced you, then look it up. Verify or Falsify (see what I did here?) what I state.
Furthermore, I didn't take the quote from any separate material. It is from the very page you cited in your link. It's under "Independence Between Love and Desire."
-->
@Athias
Again -- it is the fuel of the possessiveness that most typically determines if it is a romantic attraction or platonic, but... if one of your friends is very possessive of you in that regard it is certainly possible. I can indeed argue that their is support for my conclusion, the fact that it has not been explored does not mean it is false, it simply means that the neurological data is not all there, notice that most of my arguments are not neurological - that's why - if there was solid data, that's all I would need, just showing the source, but there is not, hence why I only used it as an example, in fact, I explicitly stated that the only purpose of the quote was to provide insight, nothing else.
I will apologize, I only used the abstract, which is what I initially claimed - so I was wrong in that regard; however, the fact that you cut out so much context clearly still shows that you are wrong - the entire quote:
"Although it may not be easy to imagine sexual desire without romantic love, the notion of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love is somewhat more controversial. Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love, even in its earliest, passionate stages. Many men and women report having experience romantic passion in the absence of sexual desire (Tennov, 1979), and even prepubertal children, who have not undergone the hormonal changes responsible for adult levels of sexual motivation, report intense romantic infatuations (Hatfield, Schmitz, Comelius, & Rapson, 1988)." [LINK]
You are quite clearly taking her out of context, however, even given what you think - there is a key grammatical insight you have seemed to miss, the comma, after pure and platonic there are commas, in a way that is clearly indicative of a list - the author is simply saying that they all fall into the same category of controversial to prove - and then goes on to argue why it is nonetheless. You are cherry-picking here - that is without doubt.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again -- it is the fuel of the possessiveness that most typically determines if it is a romantic attraction or platonic, but... if one of your friends is very possessive of you in that regard it is certainly possible.
Yes, it's possible, but I'm asking you based on your description: if my friend bears me no sexual attraction or affinity, yet likes my personality and is possessive of the notion that I'm his singular best friend, and vice versa, does that reflect a "romantic" relationship?
I can indeed argue that their is support for my conclusion, the fact that it has not been explored does not mean it is false, it simply means that the neurological data is not all there, notice that most of my arguments are not neurological - that's why - if there was solid data, that's all I would need, just showing the source, but there is not, hence why I only used it as an example, in fact, I explicitly stated that the only purpose of the quote was to provide insight, nothing else.
Insight into what? If the data you cite isn't all there, then why cite it in the first place?
You are quite clearly taking her out of context, however, even given what you think - there is a key grammatical insight you have seemed to miss, the comma, after pure and platonic there are commas, in a way that is clearly indicative of a list - the author is simply saying that they all fall into the same category of controversial to prove
Then she would've used the conjunction, "and." That is, "the notion of 'pure,' 'platonic' AND 'nonsexual' romantic love is somewhat more controversial." But that isn't what she said. With that said, this can easily be settled once you research the difference between "and," and "or." If my argument reflects anything less than my being forthright about this, then that can be exposed quite easily. Not to mention, the noun phrase which starts with "the notion" is singular. What does that mean? She would have said, "the NOTIONS of 'pure,' 'platonic,' AND 'nonsexual' romantic love ARE somewhat controversial." She is referring to a single notion, and any qualifier she "listed" can be substituted.
-->
@Athias
Grammar Lesson: [LINK]
Or can also be used as such: "used after a negative verb to mean not one thing and also not another:"
You are factually wrong, yes -you are right that can be the state sometimes, however it is not here - as the commas make sure of that - furthermore - did you know that words like someone and somebody are singular? People switch the two on a regular basis - so given the context we can safely say that the author is using "notion" as a plural - as she goes on to literally say that they are different - you are quite insistent on your cherry-picking.
If your friend derives pleasure from your personality and is possessive of you because of that - yes - that is a romantic attraction - we call it a crush - just in case you didn't know.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Good. Now how does the use of and/or affect qualifiers/modifiers?
You are factually wrong
No, I'm not. I actually know for a fact that I'm not.
yes -you are right that can be the state sometimes, however it is not here -
No, not "sometimes"; "always. "
so given the context we can safely say that the author is using "notion" as a plural
No. Notion is not plural. Notion can be pluralized to "Notions."
as she goes on to literally say that they are different - you are quite insistent on your cherry-picking.
No, she doesn't. There's nothing in the syntax that suggests she's making a distinction between "platonic" and "nonsexual" romantic love.
You don't have a case, here. Unless, you can substantiate that she's made a grammatical mistake, she's using the discrete coordinating conjunction, "or," to exemplify the "possibilities and choices" in modifying a SINGULAR notion.
-->
@Athias
You've continued to make assertions without actually looking at the evidence here - how it affects modifiers? You do realize that you can list modifiers? They are all modifiers of love, as in - different forms of love - and yes - as somebody and someone - people can switch singular and plural pronouns - thats how nouns work in general
-->
@Theweakeredge
You've continued to make assertions without actually looking at the evidence here
They're not assertions. They're facts of grammar. Verify or falsify at your leisure.
You do realize that you can list modifiers?
Yes, I do.
They are all modifiers of love, as in - different forms of love
You haven't substantiated this; and the syntax does not substantiate this.
and yes - as somebody and someone - people can switch singular and plural pronouns - thats how nouns work in general
Somebody and someone are not plural. They are indefinite pronouns because they do not specify the identity of the referent.
Case in point: Someone IS in here; Somebody IS in here (grammatically correct.)
Someone ARE in here; Somebody ARE in here (grammatically incorrect as "ARE" is the conjugation of the verb "to be" for plurality--"you" being the exception.)
-->
@Athias
"notion of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"
and
"notions of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"
change nothing with the syntax. There is no difference here with notions and notion - perhaps if there was you would have a point. However, beyond any of this, you simply wrong: read - "Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love", this statement clearly indicates that the author does indeed believe that romantic love does not require sexual desire - this entire thing by you about grammar is a red herring - drop it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"notion of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"and"notions of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"change nothing with the syntax.
Yes it does. By suggesting "notions" instead of "notion," it's clear that there's more than one notion to which she's referring. Once again, in order for the statement to reflect that which you claim it states, it would have to look like this:
"Although it may not be easy to imagine sexual desire without romantic love, the NOTIONS of "pure," "platonic," AND "nonsexual" romantic love ARE somewhat more controversial."
Here, I'll give you an example:
1. The notion of epistemology or metaphysics is important to ontology. What am I suggesting here? I'm suggesting that ONLY ONE of them is important to ontology; NOT BOTH.
2. The notions of epistemology and metaphysics are important to ontology. What am I suggesting here? Since I pluralized "notion" and used an inclusive coordinating conjunction "and," I'm stating that BOTH are important to ontology.
There is no difference here with notions and notion
Yes there is: one is plural, and the other is singular.
perhaps if there was you would have a point.
I do have a point.
However, beyond any of this, you simply wrong
No, I am not.
"Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love", this statement clearly indicates that the author does indeed believe that romantic love does not require sexual desire
Yes, that is her argument. But, my point is not to directly contradict her argument. My point is that even your reference makes no distinction between a "nonsexual" romantic relationship and a "platonic" relationship. So her argument essentially amounts to, "platonic love does not require sexual desire." And I have no intention of refuting that.
this entire thing by you about grammar is a red herring - drop it.
No, it's not. Grammar, semantics, syntax, and lexicon are important in the construction of an argument to ensure that one communicates that which one intends to communicate.
-->
@Athias
You are providing examples of when that IS NOT THE CASE however the fact of the matter is that "Notion" and "Notions" do not directly change the meaning of the terms in any effective way - you are stretching the hell out of this to make it agree with your conclusion - even though every other indicator does not - it is referring to different parts of the singular notion of love - and you have failed to account for the actual definition of or provided.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are providing examples of when that IS NOT THE CASE
No, it is ALWAYS the case. "AND" is inclusive, "OR" is exclusive. "And" can be used to enumerate more than one thing, where as "Or" enumerates alternatives when expressed exclude all others.
The failure in your grasp is that you believe "notion of 'pure,' 'platonic' or 'nonsexual' romantic love is somewhat more controversial" is the same as "notions of 'pure' love, 'platonic' love, and 'nonsexual' romantic love are ALL somewhat controversial." Even if I were to concede to you that she's making a distinction between "pure, platonic, and nonsexual romantic," this would STILL suggest that ONLY ONE of them is somewhat more controversial. And this conclusion is not supported by that which follows which only compares sexual desire and romantic love. Again, you'd have to demonstrate that she made a grammatical mistake, or concede that she used "pure" "platonic" and "nonsexual romantic" in virtually the same way, which is not only supported by the syntax, but also how she follows up on the statement.
however the fact of the matter is that "Notion" and "Notions" do not directly change the meaning of the terms in any effective way
Non sequitur. I'm not suggesting that it changes the meaning of the terms. I'm stating that singularizing the noun as well using the conjunction, "or," indicates that she's using the terms synonymously.
you are stretching the hell out of this to make it agree with your conclusion
I'm not "stretching" anything. I'm citing the rules of grammar. Again, verify or falisify at your leisure.
even though every other indicator does not
Every indicator does support my conclusion. Grasping those indicators is another matter.
it is referring to different parts of the singular notion of love
No, it's virtually equating the "pure" "platonic" and "nonsexual romantic" parts of love, not differentiating them especially since they are not brought up again.
and you have failed to account for the actual definition of or provided.
Because my point is that your description of nonsexual romantic love and the definition of platonic love are identical or virtually equivalent (see what I did here, again?)
-->
@Athias
Do you simply fail to grasp the definition here?
"used to connect DIFFERENT possibilities:" - you did nothing but hand wave the definition aside - that is not a valid rebuttal - but again - your interpretation DOES NOT MATTER we have the direct statement from the author themselves - which is "Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love" - that is them saying DIRECTLY that you can be in romantic love with someone without sexual desire - we know that she is not talking about platonic love here because she makes an EXAMPLE which is referring directly to romantic love which is not sexual: "report intense romantic infatuations" or else - you know - it would just be kids having friendships - yet there is a distinction here.
Even if I concede to your bullshit definition of OF here, which as it is a list, is clearly not the correct one - you are false. You are trying to interpret in a way that you like - and are flatly wrong. That's it. Accept it or make a valid argument.
-->
@Athias
Again - using the definition of OF which is to connect different things - as in platonic, pure, and non-sexual romantic love - how do we know this - because of the example - where she speaks of an infatuation and which is typically not used to describe anything aside from romantic attraction - hence - the example clearly support the fact that she is listing different parts of love - as in a complex emotion that there are different parts of.
Let's say I'm wrong though - that she is saying something like - a container for storing water or a canteen - where its clarifying a phrase to a definition (though the fact that the list is not preceded by a definition makes this much less convincing) I would just argue that the platonic that she is discussing is functionally different from the notion that you have of it. And I reference her examples to prove that:
"Many men and women report having experience romantic passion in the absence of sexual desire (Tennov, 1979), and even prepubertal children, who have not undergone the hormonal changes responsible for adult levels of sexual motivation, report intense romantic infatuations (Hatfield, Schmitz, Comelius, & Rapson, 1988)." [LINK]
Contiously language such as "fall in love" or "experience romantic passion" which has almost NEVER been used to describe platonic relationships - so EVEN IF and this is stretching - I agree with you that she is describing them as the same - their is a clear distinction here inbetween what is typically considered platonic love and the love being described here as platonic (this is again, if I agree which I don't)