Taking sexual relationship as its own thing, separate from romantic relationship (i.e. separating the sexual and romantic aspects), what is the difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship? What differentiates them, exactly?
I don’t know if I could have a romantic relationship without some sort of sexual feelings involved or at least a potential for them.
- A relationship is platonic if I want to spend time with someone doing things but don’t want to cuddle, have sex, or kiss.
- A relationship is sexual if sex is the focus, though friendship may be present.
- A relationship is romantic when both sex and friendship are focused.
Let me just say that this is my answer and there is no right answer. It’s more important to clearly communicate your desires and ask other people about theirs.
These semi-arbitrary lines exist to help you learn to paint, but ultimately, you and your partner(s) are the artists of your relationships and if you’re painting with the right person(s) you can paint however you want, though you should act ethically and respect other’s self-determination.
Basically the view I have. What do you call a romantic partner you don’t have sex with? A friend.
If there’s no sex or sexual tension, there is no romance.
Friendship - separate lives with limited involvement.
Romantic - shared life, fully involved.
I’ve been romantic with more than a few people, and not shared my entire life with them and vice versa. Not every boyfriend and girlfriend moves in immediately, y’know?
I’ve also fucked a few friends.
Sex was excluded from the theme and my thought was using that consideration.
So there are no romantic relationships where you don’t have a ”shared life”? Sounds pretty implausible to me.
An affair at a workplace can definitely be a romantic relationship. As can be a short fling, and all kinds of polyamorous relationships, where your life doesn’t revolve around a certain partner.
Keep in mind that sexual intent isn’t a consideration.
I’d say that if you think of romance as something ephemeral or fleeting and of friendship as something grounded or permanent, then the two states can be reversed or interchangeable.
Then romance could be seen as chasing dreams while friendship pursues realism?
However we should also consider intent. Romantic feeling towards someone elevates them beyond the ordinary. It becomes a pursuit that gives out a part of oneself, in excess one might say. On the other hand, in order for friendship to reach that level of commitment or even higher, it’s inevitable to pass through a stage of romantic idealization in the literary sense of the other person’s attributes.
Complete intimacy means being a part of another’s life and they being a part of yours. And to fully trust another in every aspect is something that can only be achieved through the idealistic view of romance.
If we were to joke about it… They don’t call the intense, almost homoerotic friendship between men a bromance for nothing after all.
I feel that your examples fall more into the sexual category. In my experience, a romantic relationship must always evolve into a shared life, otherwise it will die out.
As I see it, most long romantic relationships like that die out in terms of romance.
The major difference is the feelings involved. It’s very hard to describe how romantic affection feels different from platonic affection, but it does.
I think I experience some level of romantic attraction to everyone I feel close to, and it’s been this way my entire life. I also largely haven’t experienced sexual attraction across almost my entire life.
I know I have some wires crossed, but only recently have I gotten an appreciation of how different I feel from most people.
I wonder how many people are out there like me.
When you start to think about it there is no clear dividing line. For many people it is probably a degree of exclusivity. As in there being a degree of friendship you are only supposed to share with one single person. Goes out the window when you are any kind of non-monogamous of course.
In a platonic relationship sex/romance is out of the question.
That’s the definition I was taught.
Plato wanted to bang all his students, he just didn’t because he believed that would ruin it. So as long as I just want someone but don’t act on it, is this platonism?
It’s important to remember that this is a model used to analyze relationships. Famously, “all models are wrong, but some models are useful”.
Human relationships can reach incredible levels of complexity. Heck, human sexuality alone is a huge thing to study.
I know a couple where a bi person is married to an ace person in an open marriage. I know a couple that owns their own house and run their own business together but keep separate personal bank accounts. I’ve heard of people who are “just friends” who parent and raise children together. I know people who are married but maintain separate residences. And of course I know people who are married, own and live in one home together, and have parented and raised children together, and have a joint bank account. There are a lot of different ways people can relate to each other.
Romantic generally involves a lot of physical contact associated with romance, like holding hands, cuddling, kissing, etc. There are romantic overtures, like going on dates as a couple that often have that contact or at least the potential for it. Basically behaviors that people consider to be things people in relationships tend to do.
Platonic may have some physical contact, but it is more limited and tends to not have the sexual overtones. Friends who are girls may hold hands, but not do the other things like kiss and cuddle. They might go out as a pair, but without any sexual attention. Guys can also hold hands, but in some cultures it is seen as romantic for men but not women and yes that is a double standard.
Honestly it comes down to behaviors commonly seen as romantic or platonic when observed from outside and it is based on intent by the participants. Hugs, they can be friendly, romantic, or cold and done out of obligation and can be intended or seen different ways depending on context. Same with closed mouth kissing.
But that is focused on behaviors. Platonic relationships don’t have the same kind of romantic feelings, which are also context dependent.
I can’t think of a romantic realtionship where sexual is not a part of it. Without it it becomes much like a family loving relationship. siblings, parent/child, just a good friend. Basically anything where you care about someone else. their wellbeing. on a regular basis.
Some people are asexual but not aromantic, and some people can’t have sex due to medical issues, so there are plenty of people out there who separate these! A lot of folks do experience them as entangled experiences, and that’s fine too. What’s important is finding what parts work for you, and a partner that is compatible with that if applicable.
I guess it sorta depends on what counts as non sexual. If they could have sex would they? Is there kissing and canoodling like with virgins at the start of relationships. I would call all those sexual just not actively so. Its like potentially sexual.
I’m ace. Kissing and some cuddling makes me very uncomfortable, because it often leads to sex. There have been times that I thought I was sharing a sweet kiss with someone and suddenly they’re trying to slide hands under my clothes. So in my mind that was a romantic kiss, but to the other person it was sexual. This is why it’s so important for people like me to fully discuss things before we start dating someone.
There are different types of ace, you’ll see some aces say they are sex-favorable. That means they don’t feel sexually attracted to anyone, but they will engage in sex. On the opposite side of the spectrum is sex-repulsed. That’s me, I feel absolutely disgusted by sex.
That makes sense but there is again sibling, parent/child kiss and sexual kissing. I would be curious about what you think of kissing wise. Like making out tongue kissing versus peck on the cheek or just lip touching. Similarly a familial hug of reassurance vs canoodling type grabby hugging. I guess in the end if (in my opinion) you would not do it with your parent or sibling then I view it as sexual (the thing you would not do) and if you would do it I view it as non sexual.
My view is that there are shades of gray between kissing family and kissing with the intent to have sex. To me there is distinction between a kiss shared during a date and one that is shared as you’re stumbling towards a bed with a partner. One is an “I love you” kiss (romantic) and the other is “let’s fuck now” (sexual).
The absence of sex is part of the definition for platonic (unless you’re referencing how Plato himself had sex which would have to be Platonic, but it’s a different word when capitalized).
platonic: Neither sexual nor romantic in nature; being or exhibiting platonic love.
platonic love: Intimate but non-sexual affection.
Attested 1636 in Platonic Lovers by William Davenant. Earlier coined in Latin in the 15th century as amor platonicus by Florentine scholar Marsilio Ficino (originally in 1476 letter to Alamanno Donati, later expounded in De amore (1484)), based on his interpretation of the Symposium by Plato, specifically the speech by Socrates, relating the thoughts of Diotima of Mantinea.
Generally speaking, I would define romantic relationships as those where attraction is experienced (not necessarily acted upon) and where there is exclusivity, with the exception of non-monogamous relationships. A good relationship should have all the benefits of friendship, but also a mutual desire, often sex and other intimate touch, and the expectation that you will reserve those feelings and contact for each other.
I typically hate when people say “just Google it”, however in this case - for such a simple question - why didn’t you just Google it?
