|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
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.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 75 of 104:
|
Jan 20 01:20 UTC 2006 |
Re #74: If you have any doubts, it's not OK. In other words, anything that's
explicitly forbidden or anything that your conscience forbids is off-limits.
|
tod
|
|
response 76 of 104:
|
Jan 20 01:53 UTC 2006 |
Praise be to Allah
|
cyklone
|
|
response 77 of 104:
|
Jan 20 04:38 UTC 2006 |
Re #73: Oh, you're a real rebel, in a 90's straight-edge kind of way, but
your view is in no way "counter-cultural." I'm quite sure the vast
majority of American parents tell their children the very things you
advocate. And BTW, even "real" Christians divorce. I know one born-again
woman who decided "amputation" was necessary to avoid her husband's
beatings; beatings so severe they damaged a couple of her vertabrae. Yet
she still wants her children to grow up and get married in the same way
you describe. If you want to claim you're "counter-cultural" you need to
stake out some new turf, cause you're solidly in the majority right now.
Except for the creepy "being one" part . . . .
|
happyboy
|
|
response 78 of 104:
|
Jan 20 10:00 UTC 2006 |
yeah...that sounded kind of borderline, diddnit?
|
fudge
|
|
response 79 of 104:
|
Jan 20 11:31 UTC 2006 |
hey how about stopping with the labels?
between white and black there's not only gray but all the other colours too.
Love is a state of mind - or a range of - and sex is an act that doesn't
define anything, you can have sex with a friend, a spouse, partner, complete
stranger or, for some, even animals... Labelling what a relationship is seems
like a waste of time to me.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 80 of 104:
|
Jan 20 14:14 UTC 2006 |
Re #77: I don't *want* my view to be counter-cultural, but look at the
"culture" -- the media especially. Maybe even a substantial minority
*say* they hold the same view, but I don't think they're acting like
it.
C.S. Lewis, in his discussion of divorce (_Mere Christianity_, IIRC)
said that some churches consider "amputation" so damaging a procedure
that they won't do it at all, while others reserve it for cases like
the one you describe.
|