|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 50 of 104:
| 
Jan 19 19:12 UTC 2006 |
I consider it training ground. Dad refers to it as my "mulligan".
|
keesan
|
|
response 51 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:24 UTC 2006 |
Jon, do you care for your friends and would you want to fall in love with
someone you could not care for as a friend? And do you really believe that
you can't have a relationship with someone unless you are in love?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 52 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:28 UTC 2006 |
I don't believe that I can't have a relationship of some sort without being "in
love" -- just that a romantic relationship and a (very close) friendship are
*two breeds of fish* that just happen to look similar at the very beginning and
after the "infatuation" wears off. And family is a third kind altogether.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:32 UTC 2006 |
If romance wears off, count me out. Might as well be a bowling buddy.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 54 of 104:
|
Jan 19 20:04 UTC 2006 |
My husband and I started off as friends first. Also, there's a
difference between loving someone and acting in a loving manner. Being
'in love' to me implies the first- loviing someone. That doesn't mean
you treat them well. A loving manner can last beyond the initial
infatuation stage of a relationship.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 55 of 104:
|
Jan 19 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Re #54, first sentence: The people I got my idea on the subject from are of the
opinion that "love" (in the sense that gets people married) and friendship are
mutually exclusive -- just their early stages can look identical. (They
recommend *assuming* it's a friendship until it's blatantly obvious to everyone
that it isn't, since the easiest way to ruin a male-female relationship is to
try to make a romance where there isn't one.)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 56 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Well, how does the blatantly obvious happen?
At some point one of the two people has to make a move, there's a
conversation that must take place that changes the relationship from
'just' a friendship to a relationship of a more romantic nature.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 57 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:11 UTC 2006 |
Never having gone through this process myself -- I only heard this theory last
semester, and I've never gotten up the courage to ask someone out anyway -- I
don't know.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 58 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:19 UTC 2006 |
I suppose it's not uncommon for the relationship to pass through an
awkward stage where it may not be clear, even to the participants
themselves, whether there is a romantic quality to what is going on.
And yes, it is probably best for outsiders to keep a respectful
distance and not make a big deal out of things. Nothing kills
romance (or even a non-romantic one-night-stand) quite like clueless
meddling.
|
tod
|
|
response 59 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:23 UTC 2006 |
Yea, I try to keep the caretakers out of the parlor when we're going at it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 60 of 104:
|
Jan 19 22:19 UTC 2006 |
Jon, do you have any women friends? Cousins? Neighbors that you know well?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 61 of 104:
|
Jan 19 22:22 UTC 2006 |
Friends, I hope so -- but not any I know well enough to begin to differentiate
how I would hope to stand to them. (I counted once, and found I could think of
over sixteen different kinds of "love" -- with romantic love being only one.)
|
richard
|
|
response 62 of 104:
|
Jan 19 23:11 UTC 2006 |
re #54, anne your husband was previously married right? So did he start out
just friends with his first wife, then there was infatuation and love and they
got married and had a kid, and then gradually over the course of years the
infatuation wore off, it ceased to be love and suddenly they were just friends
again, and that wasn't enough to stay married. Is that accurate? Thats the
sort of thing I was talking about. Do you think that would happen to you?
|
furs
|
|
response 63 of 104:
|
Jan 19 23:48 UTC 2006 |
Bignasty and I were friends first too. I do think it makes a
difference. It does for me.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 64 of 104:
|
Jan 19 23:57 UTC 2006 |
I concur; I think that you can be more objective in your judgement of
someone else's character when you're not preoccupied with getting laid.
|
tod
|
|
response 65 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:00 UTC 2006 |
Or even with NOT getting laid
*snort*
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:05 UTC 2006 |
Sex. There, I named it. I get the impression that the words that have been
used here such as love, infatuation, and romance, are euphamisms for
relationships in which physicial sex is practiced frequently.
So, must there really be heavy sex in a relationship for it to be love,
infatuation or romance? What about committed relationships between people
that just like each other (bisexual or homosexual)? Or between long
married couples for whom physical sex becomes more difficult or even not
possible?
|
twenex
|
|
response 67 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:06 UTC 2006 |
Some people are capable of not being literal, Mr. Vulcan.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 68 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:17 UTC 2006 |
Re #66: I wouldn't have sex with someone until we were married -- and I
consider marriage irrevocable (since sex makes the two people one --
permanently -- a divorce is an amputation of sorts). Maybe one sort of
"infatuation" is to wish that one were married to one's beloved so as to be
able to lawfully (speaking of the "Natural Law") have relations with him or
her, but anyone who would want to have sex with me before marriage is someone I
wouldn't want to be in that kind of relationship with.
|
richard
|
|
response 69 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:23 UTC 2006 |
or to put it another way, should it be "love at first sight" If it starts
out as "just friends" and then becomes love, is it the same depth as "love
at first sight"?
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:29 UTC 2006 |
re #68
I respect your opinion but suspect it will change over time.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:30 UTC 2006 |
Sex is highly correlated with romantic love for most adults. Obviously
there exist unusual circumstances and exceptions but that's the trend.
Once you're out of junior high school holding hands can only take you so
far.
I wouldn't want to be with somebody who didn't want to have sex with me.
If she wanted to but was physically unable or was waiting for some good
reason or whatever that could be OK, but she has to want to do it.
For adults who are capable of it, a long-term romantic coupling that
doesn't involve any sex woult be considered dysfunctional by most people
(and many religions.)
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:37 UTC 2006 |
re #71
I wouldn't want to be with somebody who didn't want to have sex with me.
That explains my failed lunch invitations.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 73 of 104:
|
Jan 20 00:58 UTC 2006 |
Re #69: The position that I am coming to hold (which I've articulated above)
would say that it wasn't really friendship before, just the early stages of
love.
Re #71: I recognize that my position is counter-cultural. That's a flaw in the
culture. If "holding hands can only take you so far" then for me at least it's
time to be considering if I can spend the rest of my life with her; if not,
time to be breaking it off while I still can, or if so, time to be discussing
it with her while we can still think rationally.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 74 of 104:
|
Jan 20 01:11 UTC 2006 |
I've never been totally clear on that; how far is it considered OK for a
dutiful fundamentalist Protestant to go prior to marriage? First base?
Second? I'm guessing third is out?
When I was in college, my fundie roomie and his girlfriend would lay in
bed together, kissing and cuddling by candlelight and reading from Isaiah
(the NIV, always.) There was some debate among the other fundies I knew
as to whether that was OK, but I think they were just jealous.
|