Isolde Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I believe that love has many manifestations of which romantic love is only one, and I also believe that romantic love can occur without the confines of a conventional relationship. However, to what extent do you believe that romantic relationship love is unique and different from the other kinds? Of course, sex and physical closeness is part of what makes it different. But what do you think really makes a romantic relationship different from that with your best friend, for example? It's sort of a commonly accepted notion that spouses and those who have been together for a very long time love one another to a degree that's unparalleled by any other type of relationship, but isn't a big part of that the fact that they are also friends as well as lovers? In other words, is it possible, in your opinion, that best friends can love one another as much as people in a relationship, just in a differently manifested way? I think this question has tremendous impact on those who are single, because one often wonders, if one can experience ultimate love in one's life, without being in a relationship. If I had to guess, I'd say romantic relationship love is irreplaceable, but close friendship love can come pretty close in terms of degree. I also believe that religion can help people understand what love means in a holistic sense, but that's clearly a different area of discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
TaraMaiden Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 You have already highlighted the one difference between romantic love and the others. The physical intimacy, which means you give to and of one another, in every sense. This is what makes it different. What makes it more special, is whether there is purity or not. A romantic relationship can often be worse than the others, inspite of the intimacy, because of the competitive nature of the two personas, vying for first place. it's the agendas people bring to the relationship that can damage the purity. Link to post Share on other sites
Midas Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I believe there is a profound difference between the platonic and the romantic manifestations of love. There are four or five traditional categories of love as defined by several philosophical sources. There's eros, philos, agapé, storgé, and thelema. It can be argued that there are lesser and greater forms. The author, C.S. Lewis, wrote about the Four Loves. The two that would fit here in this discussion would be eros and philos. Eros is generally regarded to be the romantic, passionate type of love, whereas philos is lacks the physical attraction commonly associated with romance. Can platonic friendships approach the depth of romantic love? Perhaps. Romantic love often falls prey to the pitfall of unrealistic expectations. Platonic relationships rarely experience this because of the boundaries between the two friends. If a platonic relationship begins to transition into one that is intimate, things could get interesting, I'm sure. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Isolde Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 What makes it more special, is whether there is purity or not. A romantic relationship can often be worse than the others, inspite of the intimacy, because of the competitive nature of the two personas, vying for first place. it's the agendas people bring to the relationship that can damage the purity. You've struck a good point here. The need for purity in a romantic relationship is another thing that separates it from the relationship between very old and good friends. In a romantic relationship, it's really exclusive in a sense that other relationships aren't, even that between best friends. Sexually and emotionally exclusive. Does that inherently make romantic relationships more valuable? Fascinating topic, really. Link to post Share on other sites
mental_traveller Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Romantic love is much weaker than platonic love. Romantic love rarely lasts a lifetime whereas platonic love rarely doesn't. Platonic soulmates rarely fall out at all, let alone betray each other, whereas in romantic relationships infidelity and betrayal happens at least half the time. Compare how often people in a romantic relationship argue with each other, to how often platonic friends argue with each other. People put up with the general inferiority of romantic relationships because they want either sex, or emotional intimacy based on sex. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 How would you characterize the love/relationship of twins separated at birth and living completely apart and then coming together later in life? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Romantic relationships don't last, if you're not friends. You have to not only love each other, but like, trust and respect each other. As for betrayal, friends betray each other all the time. There's just no legal stats kept, for this type of thing. Also, you expect less from a friend, because your investment isn't so deep. When you have stronger positive emotions about someone, where you've invested deeply, you're also open to stronger negative emotions, if there's misunderstanding or real betrayal. It's also easier to forgive someone, when the hurt doesn't cut so deeply. Link to post Share on other sites
Midas Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Romantic love is much weaker than platonic love. Romantic love rarely lasts a lifetime whereas platonic love rarely doesn't. Huh? Platonic love rarely doesn't what? I think there's a broken double negative here. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It appears the poster is asserting that platonic love, in overwhelming numbers of cases, lasts a lifetime. IDK.....that's kind of tough to quantify. BTW, rarely doesn't have to be a negative Link to post Share on other sites
Author Isolde Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 Romantic relationships don't last, if you're not friends. You have to not only love each other, but like, trust and respect each other. As for betrayal, friends betray each other all the time. There's just no legal stats kept, for this type of thing. Also, you expect less from a friend, because your investment isn't so deep. When you have stronger positive emotions about someone, where you've invested deeply, you're also open to stronger negative emotions, if there's misunderstanding or real betrayal. It's also easier to forgive someone, when the hurt doesn't cut so deeply. True, but this all is only part of what I was getting at. I guess what I was getting at is this: Should one conceptualize romantic love as platonic love + sexual love + exclusivity, or as a type of love that's greater than all the others because it is more than the sum of its parts? And also this: If one never marries or has a long relationship, doesn't one basically need to "diffuse" (as Carhill once termed it) one's love, so that platonic love essentially substitutes for the romantic? And is that enough? So many questions, so few answers, for so many of us on LS Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 IMO, there's an underlying component of platonic love in a healthy romantic relationship; it's the essential bond which can both obviate and at the same time enable and facilitate the feelings of romance. Many people (at least from my readings here) view sex (as in sexual activities and orgasm) as one of the largest and most important components of romance. Yet, many also assert that sex can be and is desired without a modicum of attachment, romantic feeling or even love towards the sexual partner. So, is sex a mere expression of romantic love but yet exists on its own? Can romantic love exist on its own without sex? If there is no sex, is it romance? When my mom held my dad's hand and looked into his eyes as he drew his last breath, what did she feel? Romantic love or platonic love? Interesting. IMO, the above is as individual as each of us. There are no absolutes, no guidelines. There are many paths to what we seek, whatever that is Link to post Share on other sites
pandagirl Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I think part of what makes romantic love more intense than platonic love is a sense of ownership/possessiveness. You are -- or should be -- in only one romantic relationship at a time. You "belong" to each other, making each other a special, unique part of each other's life that is not replicated. However, you have multiple friends, and you share friendships with other people, just not one. In my opinion, the strongest love there is is between a parent and a child. It's the only unconditional love that exists. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 True, but this all is only part of what I was getting at. I guess what I was getting at is this: Should one conceptualize romantic love as platonic love + sexual love + exclusivity, or as a type of love that's greater than all the others because it is more than the sum of its parts? And also this: If one never marries or has a long relationship, doesn't one basically need to "diffuse" (as Carhill once termed it) one's love, so that platonic love essentially substitutes for the romantic? And is that enough? So many questions, so few answers, for so many of us on LS Romantic love is greater than all it's part, since it mixes them together, creating way more depth and flavour. I'm not so sure it trumps every other kind of love, like familial. From what I understand, the love of a mother for her children, trumps all. I think some fathers feel an incredible love for their children, as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Isolde Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm not comparing romantic to familial because it's just so different. I think it's reasonable to compare romantic to platonic because you choose those people to be in your life, and also those relationships are with people close to your age, who generally have similar backgrounds. The idea of parental love has always confused and fascinated me. It's almost scary to me how unconditionally parents, especially mothers, can love. Also, thoughts on bunny-love? Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's almost scary to me how unconditionally parents, especially mothers, can love. Yeah, the "they are perfect, beautiful and can do no wrong" delusions. Fortunately, my parents took the red pill What's bunny love? Pardon my ignorance... Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm not so sure I know what bunny love is either. It's best that Isolde explain what she means before my mind leads us all astray. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Isolde Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 No, I refuse to divulge the hidden meaning of bunny-love. I can say though that it's nothing perverted, sorry Link to post Share on other sites
Midas Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I was going to post a naughty flash animation illustrating bunny love, but that might be deemed inappropriate. Bunny Love = the innocent affection of two youthful star-crossed lovers? I dunno. Maybe it's a fixation with the classic movie Watership Down? Link to post Share on other sites
TaraMaiden Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 bed-hopping? _/l\_ Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Love ........ Link to post Share on other sites
BubblyPopcorn Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I believe there is some bonding/attachment theory to it (from what I can recall after seeing a documentary on the Animal Planet ). Certain rabbits mate for life and they experience loss and devastation if they lose their mate, similar to humans. Maybe that is what Isolde is referring too? Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I think analyzing love to death, as done here, takes the romance out of every kind of love imaginable. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Isolde Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 StarGazer Don't you think you're attributing a bit too much power to this thread? It is called LOVEshack, you know. Why post on a relationship forum if you don't want to talk about love? Further, I'm actually interested in hearing what other people have to say on the topic. The bunny love thing was a JOKE, my way of being facetious and saying, "hey, don't take this thread too seriously," which you clearly are. Maybe I'm just weird but since I know love is a mystery, I don't really think analysis takes anything away from it. Link to post Share on other sites
BubblyPopcorn Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I think analyzing love to death, as done here, takes the romance out of every kind of love imaginable. Party pooper. Link to post Share on other sites
Midas Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Don't take things too seriously! Wowzers. Here's that bunny love link. I just couldn't resist. http://www.lebonze.com/playground/bunnylove.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts