"Better than pork, isn't it?"
Yeah, it sure is. But don't make the mistake that all Catholics are celibate - only most Catholic priests are. Sex is NOT a necessity of an individual's life, just one of it's splendid benefits.
You can have a spaghetti without sauce and sauce without spaghetti, but everyone knows they're best together.
Nobody is arguing that physical closeness, and sex, combined with a romantic relationship, are the best. What's at issue is whether or not a romantic relationship can be had (albeit not optimally) without physical presence.
I can't believe you're holding up Victorians as a model to emulate!
Me neither! And I'm not. I'm simply pointing to them as precedent of what can be done. Again, nobody is saying that this is the optimal solution to the problem, just that it's a viable one.
The sight of a woman's ankle could still give a man a hard-on.
Hear, hear! Especially when it's both ankles, and they're both behind her neck. (Opps! Was that out loud??)
I get the impression that you think we should all voluntarily abstain, or that physical affection is not a necessary or important component of a relationship.
No such thing. I'm just saying that we CAN abstain. This is not a binary issue. Sex is not a necessary part of a relationship (except when either partner makes it so). It is important (unless both partnes agree that it is not - really rare, and IMO, unpleasant). Optimality vs viability of the solution, again.
The origin of the spark may not be physical, but the spark is. You feel physically drawn to them.
Besides the 'spark' being a glandular flush, is this necessarily so? I've had online flirts - which I never pursued - where the attraction was definitelly real, there was a percieved spark, but the closeness I sought was intellectual/emotional. There was an imaginary physical manifestation, but no real desire to make it happen. I've also been infatuated with women with whom I wanted to be close, simply for the purpose of raising the conversation to a higher, more intimate level - with no physical aspect other than the body language involved in sharing ideas. It was more like wanting to be near an idealized and idolized writer or actress, not a potential mate. Granted, this is not 'romantic' love, but it's definitelly a 'spark' and a need for closeness.
I think that the 'spark' in strictly romantic love drives us to greated intimacy - which is implicit in physical affection. But this physical affection is not the only means of achieving intimacy. Sharing secrets and fears, openning up with respect to emotional trauma, heck- even working out together can bring people closer together within the scope of romance. I think that what the 'spark' intends to accomplish is the breaking down of barriers, and exposing of vulnerabilities. Physical love is simply a very tangible example of this. Putting your tongue between someone elses teeth certainly makes you vulnerable - but so does telling them your greatest shame - after all, they can only bite you once IRL. Airing laundry can be done online as well as over a candle-lit dinner - and posting chat-logs to a newsgroup is an ever bigger betrayal then telling your friends that you like your feet licked.
People who deny themselves the whole experience are, simply put, missing out.
Yes, we agree. Sex, physical comfort and affection, a hand to hold, these are all wonderful things. To you, and to me, they are an integral part of our romantic relationships. But are they necessarily integral to any romantic relationship? If the original poster of the article feels that, to him, these are things he would rather forgo until an indefinite time - perhaps completely - in favor of intellectual and emotional closeness, then who are you and I to tell him that he is wrong? I think that 'a romantic relationship' can be had without physical presence.
'MY romantic relationship' can not - mostly because my GF is "high maintenance" and 'needs' the physical reasurence that everything is well. She needs body language in conversation - each time we've tried to cut costs by chatting on ICQ, we've ended up fighting. Tone of voice, eye contact, these things carry cues that she depends on. Sex is also an important part of our relationship, it's a form of communication, a show of affection and reassurance, and hey, it's fun.
But, strictly speaking, physical love is not a necessary attribute of any and all romantic relationship - that's all I've been arguing.
|"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"|
[ Parent ]