Can you be in a Platonic-Romantic relationship with someone?

[lookcloser]

I've heard of stories of how certain Knights would only exchange sonnets with the women they were in love with and never really meet them. I've heard of some long distance relationships that have gone on for YEARS without them meeting each other in between. A couple dated for 10 years and hadn't even kissed till they got married!
As for me, all the relationships I had back in the school days were like that. I wouldn't even fantasize about the guy. My love was ...Umm, 'pure' But I assume it was because I was really young and didn't know the 'ways of the world' as well and didn't have this cocktail of hormones gushing through me.

But as human beings/animals we will totally crave for physical intimacy. Most people will. So how does it work? Or maybe it didn't work? Or MAYBE the Knights got action from elsewhere

Do you think you can be in a Platonic relationship with someone? Can you love someone romantically and not get physically intimate?

Or is there no such thing?

[itsEDGAR]

In my opinion I think you can, have you ever had such great conversation with a certain someone that made you feel those "butter flys" in your stomach without ever being romantic with them? I know i've had many friends who i still hold dearly close and are females, although sometimes i do feel that sexual attraction pulling me in, I still try to hold back mainly because sex usually does end up ruining good friends haha (had happened to me too many times)

But sure, i have plenty of platonic relationships where i get everything else I "need" other than sex, a good friend you vent to, "philosaphies" as i like to call it (talk about anything in the world that actually takes thought), tell secrets. I find it so much more satisfying actually conversating with people of the opposite sex, and even the same sex but for me mainly, i get something more out of talking with females with no sexual contact.

I love you females for more than your bodyy

[hiddenmaverick]

^^ I'm with itsEDGAR on this. You put it better than I can.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by lookcloser

Do you think you can be in a Platonic relationship with someone? Can you love someone romantically and not get physically intimate?

Or is there no such thing?

LC, I think you may have 'romantic' confused with 'intimate'.

Intimacy is both emotional and physical. With our closest friends, we can share emotional intimacy. With lovers, intimacy is physical. Gender, in either case, makes no difference.

Most fulfilling is when both merge in an intimate relationship.

[Brutha]

Or maybe it didn't work? Or MAYBE the Knights got action from elsewhere

When you think about those times keep in mind that the knights could practically rape peasants without much negative consequence to themselves.

In the middle ages concept like the right of the first night were popular.

[lookcloser]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

LC, I think you may have 'romantic' confused with 'intimate'.

Intimacy is both emotional and physical. With our closest friends, we can share emotional intimacy. With lovers, intimacy is physical. Gender, in either case, makes no difference.

Most fulfilling is when both merge in an intimate relationship.

So what is romantic love? Romantic love is not just about the physical and emotional connection. Its kinda 'magical'

[curiouslyrandom]

Originally Posted by lookcloser

So what is romantic love? Romantic love is not just about the physical and emotional connection. Its kinda 'magical'

Romantic love is a concept that was new in the Middle Ages in Europe. Prior to that, marriages were just legal contracts that bound families together and produced heirs. Romance was not part of the deal. In some parts of the world it's still that way.

Nowadays we expect every marriage to have romance, and divorce when the romance is gone.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by lookcloser

So what is romantic love? Romantic love is not just about the physical and emotional connection. Its kinda 'magical'

Well, LC, I'm going to appear cynical for saying this, but 'romantic' love is a social construct. By that, I mean that there really is no such thing, except that which we falsely in our own minds.

Love itself is 'magical' in the sense that whenever love is involved (and by love, I mean real Love), miracles happen, as though they're meant to happen. And they happen regardless of the relationship status between people.

We cling to the concept of 'romantic love' to give ourselves something to hope for, that will presumably make our life better. But, once we think we've 'found' it, we realize that it wasn't all we had thought. Intimacy requires some work, and dealing with emotions that aren't included in our concept of 'romantic love'.

[spacecadetglow]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Well, LC, I'm going to appear cynical for saying this, but 'romantic' love is a social construct. By that, I mean that there really is no such thing, except that which we falsely in our own minds.

Going to have to challenge you on this one, Solippy, though I do agree with the rest of your post...

I don't think there's anything "false" about social constructs. Whenever this argument comes up, you have to ask, what *isn't* a social construct, when you get right down to it?

So yes, it's illusory in the sense that everything else is illusory. So we end up right back where we started.

If romantic love is a collective social hallucination, this would mean there's something else that's somehow more real or substantive, but you can't prove that. Even your definitions of "real love" have been formulated out of the quagmire of social constructs and hand-me-down mental frameworks that indeed came from somewhere, just like everything else.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

Going to have to challenge you on this one, Solippy, though I do agree with the rest of your post...

Yes, as I said, it appears cynical to say what I did. Invariably, it hits a nerve somewhere, with someone.

I don't think there's anything "false" about social constructs. Whenever this argument comes up, you have to ask, what *isn't* a social construct, when you get right down to it?

So yes, it's illusory in the sense that everything else is illusory. So we end up right back where we started.

Good point, and well put.

If romantic love is a collective social hallucination, this would mean there's something else that's somehow more real or substantive, but you can't prove that. Even your definitions of "real love" have been formulated out of the quagmire of social constructs and hand-me-down mental frameworks that indeed came from somewhere, just like everything else.

Actually, no, I formulate my definition of 'real Love' from my own experience, just as I formulate my definition of 'romantic love', and it is through such experience that I can even make the statement that 'romantic love' is a social construct.

But, I see what you're saying in that there must be something more substantive behind the construct, and I agree. In this case, what is behind the construct of 'romantic love' would be 'real Love'. Real Love, (and again, speaking from my own experience), is behind quite a number of social constructs, especially those centering around anything dealing with 'romantic love' (like marriage, parenthood, etc.). Can I prove that? Of course not. But then, I don't need to, except to myself, and except through my own experience.

To be clear, you can think or believe anything you want about 'romantic love', it makes no difference to me. Love, in any form, or however experienced, is a good thing. I only make the distinction in order to alleviate any future disillusionment.

[spacecadetglow]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Actually, no, I formulate my definition of 'real Love' from my own experience, just as I formulate my definition of 'romantic love', and it is through such experience that I can even make the statement that 'romantic love' is a social construct.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I hate when people use the deconstructionist argument as a cop out for everything, which I was admittedly doing a little bit, but I think what you said about personal experience hits the nail right on the head. There is a difference between the experience of Really Loving somebody, and trying to fit them into these pre-packaged fantasies. It feels different. It's hard to put into words, but I'm thinking about some of the "deeper level" insights we gain vs. the superficial experience of sizing someone up for their mateability. I don't really know what I'm talking about, but nonetheless, I do see your point and regardless of *how* our experiences are manufactured or where they came from originally, they are still authentically ours.

Real Love, (and again, speaking from my own experience), is behind quite a number of social constructs, especially those centering around anything dealing with 'romantic love' (like marriage, parenthood, etc.).

Do you mean that "Real Love" as a sort of Platonic ideal, the more substantive thing that exists separately from the constructs? Or do you mean "behind" as in, it's at cause of those constructs? I can tell we're moving into a treacherous territory of semantics, and I don't really know how up for a philosophical discussion I am because it makes my brain hurt, but I'm interested in the distinction drawn between the ideal and the constructs.

[Vivacious Woman]

I agree with BRUTHA. Somehow, I have known someone "a christian couple" who is in the same relationship. They've been for two years and they never kissed until they got their wedding. For me its impossible, but just let it be. Kiss is so important for me. Personally, it shows affection. How deep is that person's love for me. It also shows respect, especially when he kiss me in the forehead.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I hate when people use the deconstructionist argument as a cop out for everything, which I was admittedly doing a little bit, but I think what you said about personal experience hits the nail right on the head. There is a difference between the experience of Really Loving somebody, and trying to fit them into these pre-packaged fantasies. It feels different. It's hard to put into words, but I'm thinking about some of the "deeper level" insights we gain vs. the superficial experience of sizing someone up for their mateability.

This is all I'm really saying, Space.

Do you mean that "Real Love" as a sort of Platonic ideal, the more substantive thing that exists separately from the constructs? Or do you mean "behind" as in, it's at cause of those constructs? I can tell we're moving into a treacherous territory of semantics, and I don't really know how up for a philosophical discussion I am because it makes my brain hurt, but I'm interested in the distinction drawn between the ideal and the constructs.

I don't like getting into philosophical discussions either, Space, and I'm about loathe to discuss semantics, but it seems (again, I can't prove this stuff, it's only what I see) as though yes, that real Love is behind the constructs as if it were the cause. I mean, I really don't know anyone who could deny that love (in the 'real' sense) exists, and it seems that it is in the very acceptance of it, where people create concepts like 'romantic love'--"Maybe Love is this," I have even told myself, before. At the same time, the concept formed in my mind doesn't make 'this' Love, which makes it separate.

As for Platonic concepts, I'd rather not introduce another 'type' of Love. There is Love. Accept it. Seems best to just let it flow through you, rather than try to make another idea or ideal out of it. I've done that, before, only to discover that such efforts only lead to disillusionment and, often enough, pain.

[spacecadetglow]

Well said, Solip-dawg. All too often I get caught up in the concepts (spiritual materialism!) and forget that what we're trying to describe is a state of being which is ultimately indescribable... another cliche, boo. But it's true.

I find that when I think about love too much or try to define it, it loses its magic and the conceptualization ultimately doesn't compare. Even when I try to define my actions as loving or unloving, it doesn't quite work, as in "what would be the loving thing to do here?" It's really such an elusive thing. When you think you have it, it slips away.

[Gene]

Yes, I believe it is possible to be in a platonic relationship and love the person. I believe it is possible to look at my platonic friend and see the beauty of their soul and love them as deeply as any romantic partner.

I do enjoy spending time with my friends in whom I see this inner beauty. This feeling of love is not about physical contact or sex. I have other friends and I have a romantic love relationship. For me it is not a choice between one kind of relationship or another kind of relationship.

[Cochonette]

I still try to hold back mainly because sex usually does end up ruining good friends haha (had happened to me too many times)

That's really interesting. I wonder if that would happen to me. Because I have been lately cuddling with people where it's like sex feels inappropriate, and yet cuddling feels great... then it's confusing, I'm not sure if I want more, but the answer is probably not... I think I just want to explore that sexual realm, but not necessarily with that person... however, I confuse myself by trying to see the sexual there when it's probably not really. And I've never had sex and barely kissed anyone, so I don't know what would work for me.

But it sounds like you don't also have that physical intimacy with those people you don't have sex with? Being as physically intimate as I am with this one person might not be that common when it's not sexual. Z told me it was hard to find someone to see eye-to-eye with on this, of wanting to have a physically intimate non-sexual relationship, but this is what Z has been looking for.

I guess maybe it depends on how you go about it. If you have sex with someone because you truly want it, and it's mutual, you should be good. But if you don't truly want it, or you present it in such a way that you end up having sex with people who don't truly want it, then it will likely feel uncomfortable afterward. And I don't want to go for something right now if I'm not sure that I truly want it. I guess it's too intimate of a thing to do and not be sure about. Intimacy is about trust, and being unsure breaks the trust. And I suppose that could break the trust of the entire relationship...

then again, not necessarily. It's in the presentation, I think. :P Being unsure about wanting sex sounds okay if there's a very strong, open and honest verbal communication. 'cause I have had someone be very direct and confident with me about wanting to have sex with me, and that's just different... I feel like it would take a lot to break that trust!

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

That's really interesting. I wonder if that would happen to me. Because I have been lately cuddling with people where it's like sex feels inappropriate, and yet cuddling feels great... then it's confusing, I'm not sure if I want more, but the answer is probably not... I think I just want to explore that sexual realm, but not necessarily with that person... however, I confuse myself by trying to see the sexual there when it's probably not really. And I've never had sex and barely kissed anyone, so I don't know what would work for me.

Well, I can only speak from my subjective experience but I can clearly tell the difference. This may be because I did an concerted study of my sexuality and sexual responses while kind of rebuilding my sexual identity in my early 20s...on ecstasy...lol...

But it is a clear physical sensation...a yearning that comes from very low in my belly connected surely to my root chakra. I usually feel so hot because of all the blood flow and I just can't even think straight.

Also, OT - I like to have romantic platonic relationships with all of my friends. I'm a sensual being, too, not just a sexual one!

RE: nonsexual physical relationship and intimacy...my son climbs into my lap and says "hold me!" to me at least 4 or 5 times a day, and of course I do. It makes perfect sense to me that people yearn for physical intimacy and touch therapy in a society where physical interaction of the nonsexual type is deemed inappropriate, most of the time...

Hug life!

PS - you just get me going today, apparently. Awesome!

[Criseyde]

Well, courtly love is a literary convention, not a historical fact. It's generally found in medieval and Renaissance romance (high romance: knights errant, ladies fair, quests, magic, you know the drift; quite different from romance novels that are popular today), not in chronicle.

In medieval Europe, historically speaking, maidens of the nobility were locked up in towers to preserve their chastity(/prevent them from being raped) until such time as they could marry.

As to "right of first night," whether or not that was actually a tradition is disputed; but I'd wager that the whole concept of sex was astonishingly different than how we think of it today.

To answer your question, though: yes, it's possible! Have you ever heard of asexuality? I found this website some years ago and found it really fascinating: Asexual Visibility and Education Network

[votoshka]

I think it's possible to have romantic feelings for someone without engaging in intimacy. There are plenty of unrequited loves out there after all But errm... I've never had "romantic" feelings for someone without at least a bit of fantasy (or make that a LOT of fantasy attached).

For me a long distance relationship involves a LOT of fantasising . It's certainly not all about "pure" love. I mean, my love for my kids is "pure" the love I'd feel for a romantic interest is definitely not.

If I, for whatever reason, had to preserve my chastity (LOL as if I ever would), I imagine that there would be lots of masturbation and fantasies involved whenever I thought about the man I loved, even if I couldn't physically be with him!

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

PS - you just get me going today, apparently. Awesome!

Are you talking to me? I might just pretend you are... it's my dream anyway.

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

Also, OT - I like to have romantic platonic relationships with all of my friends. I'm a sensual being, too, not just a sexual one!

RE: nonsexual physical relationship and intimacy...my son climbs into my lap and says "hold me!" to me at least 4 or 5 times a day, and of course I do. It makes perfect sense to me that people yearn for physical intimacy and touch therapy in a society where physical interaction of the nonsexual type is deemed inappropriate, most of the time...

Hug life!

Amen! Sensual vs sexual, important distinction.

Yeah, I was thinking after I wrote that last post... really, I should just let things be. If it's not sexual, don't try to make it just because I'm inexperienced. I know that I'm not feeling any strong sexual desire for these people. It's not that I couldn't with them, it's not like I don't feel something, but it's probably not a good idea, especially given my current lack of experience. What I feel is mostly a non-sexual sensual desire, and I need to not let the one dilute the other.

I have a rather strong sensual desire for this person. I don't feel it much when we're not right there (nice that I don't get a craving for Z in particular... I hate cravings), but when we are, it feels soooo good.

Actually, how we met is related to what you mention 'bout your child. I made it out at something therapeutic.