Post #228,205
10/5/05 2:59:19 PM
10/5/05 9:37:15 PM
|
Of course men and women can be platonic friends
I've got several women friends. While I may occasionally lapse into a fantasy of sweaty grappling with them, I would rather not pursue that to reality because, in answer to your second question, being "just friends" after a sexual relationship is rarer than hen's teeth.
YMMV
Re-reading your original question, I see that you referenced romantic, not sexuual relationships. Pardon me if I'm being obtuse but is there a difference? If romatic; then sexual, seems to be a given, . . . at least in my experience. Am I misunderstanding "romantic"?
-----------------------------------------
George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty.
--Donald Dean Richards Jr.
Edited by Silverlock
Oct. 5, 2005, 09:37:15 PM EDT
|
Post #228,320
10/5/05 10:49:04 PM
|
The two are distinct, though highly correlated
Anyone who has had a quicky had a non-romantic sexual relationship.
Going the other way, romance is much richer than just sex. If a man and a woman go out to dinner, talk late, enjoy each other's company, hold hands and are otherwise intimate, I'd call that a romantic relationship. If there was no kissing, fondling, sex etc, then I wouldn't call it a sexual relationship. Openminded adults usually progress from one to the other, but not always. For one thing the romance could break off before it naturally progressed. Or one or both parties has strong convictions about sex outside of marriage.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,394
10/6/05 11:26:55 AM
|
Fantasies about grappling
brings sex into it. I'm talking no fantasies, no fleeting thoughts, no appreciation. of her mammaries, rear end or other naughty bits. No desire. No curiosity.
Can a man and a woman have a completely asexual relationship?
There is a difference between romantic and sexual relationships. A romantic relationship implies sex. A sexual relationship doesnt necessarily imply romance.
Woman typically cant have the sex without the emotions kicking up.
Can men?
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,395
10/6/05 11:38:44 AM
|
Did you really just ask that?
And another thing. Why would a man not at least notice her naughty bits?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,398
10/6/05 11:40:23 AM
|
Yeah, at that standard
there ain't no such animal. Bionerd, we are genetically wired to notice that stuff; we quite literally can't help it.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #228,400
10/6/05 11:42:26 AM
|
Still yes, IMO
Been there. Done that. Very often in a work context, in fact.
As for sex leading to emotion, I think that varies by the guy. For me, the two are closely linked. It has happened that they weren't, but that's rare. However I know guys for whom having them not be linked appears to be the norm.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,402
10/6/05 11:47:48 AM
|
Well, romance is a social construct
while sex is an instinct. Of course, social constructs like that are very powerful in human beings. However, they are not universal; you were brought up to link them and Those Other Dudes were not.
Note for example the likely rates of infidelity in say Elizabethan England. Sex and emotion were not linked, though reproduction and emotion were: people were quite happy to fuck around, but if you threatened someone's children, they'd quite happily get all medieval on your ass... mediated by whether the children in question were in fact part of The Family as marked by society (i.e. marriage) or not.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #228,571
10/7/05 2:11:37 AM
|
Are you SURE?
Read [link|http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14756|http://www.americans...ail/assetid/14756]. That suggests to me that there could well be a biological basis to intertwining sex and emotion, and that effect can vary between individuals. The fact that the same chemicals that trigger fidelity in voles are known to be found in humans, and are known to be tied to sex, is even more suggestive.
Besides, if there wasn't some biological drive being tapped into by romance, I strongly doubt that it would manage to be as effective a trigger as it is in our relationships. I also doubt that it would appear in as many forms in as many cultures over as it does. Sure, the actions that are seen as romantic vary widely by culture. But there seems to be a fairly universal underlying pattern.
I don't know where you get your caricature of Elizabethan England, but I'd suggest re-reading Shakespeare. His poems provide ample proof that romance existed then.
Now I'll grant that the amount which romance is emphasized varies over time. Just as people's susceptibility to it seems to vary by individual. Clearly it is not all biology.
But that doesn't mean that there can't be a biological component.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,406
10/6/05 12:01:03 PM
|
Not possible IMO
Men think about sex every 7* seconds. Not acting on those thoughts is possible, not having them is not.
*I can't remember where this came from but there was a study or survey or something where it was shown the average male thought about sex, er, a lot.
-----------------------------------------
George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty.
--Donald Dean Richards Jr.
|
Post #228,409
10/6/05 12:14:16 PM
|
Only if one of them is asexual to start off with
Given "reasonable" attactiveness, which varies by individual, then by definition, attraction will happen.
If one of the people are simply asexual (they do exist) then it won't.
Or if one of them can ONLY be stimiluated by certain cues / kinks / whatever, then the attraction won't happen because the key wasn't turned.
But given a random couple of people, both of which are not repulsed by each other, both of which enjoy a range of "normal" sexual stimuli (I'm not going to bother debating normal), then there is absolutely no possibility the guy won't be thinking about sex.
A lot. Every 7 seconds is a reasonable average. Depends on what other distractions there are in the room.
No matter what Ben tells you.
|
Post #228,414
10/6/05 12:47:33 PM
|
By definition . . .
. . a relationship between a "man" and a "woman" is sexual. Whether or not there is sexual activity between the two is another matter entirely.
A man considers the sexual possibilities of every woman he encounters. He may or may not find those possibilities enticing but they will be considered. He may or may not act on possibilities that are enticing due to other considerations, but men simply have no options here, it's part of the basic programming. Women are programmed differently.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #228,415
10/6/05 12:47:51 PM
|
If the man is gay, yes.
Otherwise, forget it. He won't necessarily act on it, but he'll think it. Anyone who says differently is lying in order to appear "better" than most.
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
