Originally posted by Bardock42
T-to jerk off?
Why would you masturbate when you can have sex with your partner?
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is odd. Then relationships to you are just good friends that decided to just **** each other?Our definitions seem different.
Quite the opposite. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By removing sexual exclusivity, they are no different than friends who occasionally have sex with one another, and it is arguable whether this qualifies as a true romantic relationship.
No. It is arguable whether a relationship with "open boundaries when it comes to . . . sex outside the relationship" qualifies as "committed." Without sexual exclusivity, they are committed to what exactly?
By our standards perhaps, by their's apparently not. I am just naturally wary of dismissing relationships because they might not be like my own.
I do not think you are saying the only thing that sets apart a romantic relationship from those relationships with friends is sex, so I would assume that those aspects still exist - the emotional aspects, the mental aspects. I mean if, for whatever reason, a couple can't have sex together (through disability due to accident or something) are they no different to friends who don't have sex together?
As for me, in a relationship I am committed to the person I am with, not to just having sex with them, but that is something I consider being a part of that commitment. Others apparently just don't give it the same level of importance it would seem, but that doesn't mean they aren't committed to their partners.
It is not a matter of whether or not it qualifies as a relationship, but what kind of relationship it qualifies as.
I would be prepared to say it qualifies as the relationship the people in question consider it, since they would be the ones defining its parameters, not so much how others with acknowledged, different relationship values perceive it.
If they can reconcile non-sexual exclusivity with love and yet both feel they are in a loving, committed relationship none-the-less then I guess power to them.
Originally posted by Jim Reaperright, but you have to have limitations. to watch porn and masturbate is OK. to masturbate and think of Milla jovovich is OK. for her to masturbate and think about Brad pitt is OK.
...and variety is the spice of life
But to go out and have sex with another is wrong, no if's and's but's or maybe's about it.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
By our standards perhaps, by their's apparently not. I am just naturally wary of dismissing relationships because they might not be like my own.I do not think you are saying the only thing that sets apart a romantic relationship from those relationships with friends is sex, so I would assume that those aspects still exist - the emotional aspects, the mental aspects. I mean if, for whatever reason, a couple can't have sex together (through disability due to accident or something) are they no different to friends who don't have sex together?
As for me, in a relationship I am committed to the person I am with, not to just having sex with them, but that is something I consider being a part of that commitment. Others apparently just don't give it the same level of importance it would seem, but that doesn't mean they aren't committed to their partners.
Which begs the question, "Without sexual exclusivity, what are they committed to exactly?" If your answer is "the emotional aspects," then how is this relationship different than "friends who occasionally have sex with one another?"
I am not arguing that an open-relationship is not a relationship, but that it is a different type of relationship from a romantic relationship altogether.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I would be prepared to say it qualifies as the relationship the people in question consider it, since they would be the ones defining its parameters, not so much how others with acknowledged, different relationship values perceive it.If they can reconcile non-sexual exclusivity with love and yet both feel they are in a loving, committed relationship none-the-less then I guess power to them.
Defining things subjectively is a poor way to define things. I could have a sexual arrangement with a friend and call it a relationship, but it would not be anything other than "friends with benefits."
Originally posted by vinz07
Can you be in love with one person, and still have sex with another, and still love that other person fully? 😕
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And in doing so, you would be drawing a False Analogy. There is quite a difference between raising your voice out of frustration, and fundamentally betraying your partner.
You said that if you love someone, you would never do anything to hurt them. That is not absolutely true. We often do hurt the ones we love, with or without intention, for whatever reason.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Maybe you are justifying bad behavior.
First off, I thought you didn't beleive in Moral Absolutivity
Secondly, I am trying to understand behavior rather than justify it. People do things for different reasons.
If someone cheats on me, I can take it one of two ways: Either they didn't love me the way I thought they did, or this person has a serious problem with himself.
Insecurities can lead to that kind of behavior, and it could have almost nothing to do with how they feel about you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And his guilty would be the consequence of his abusive behavior.
If he didn't love me, he most likely wouldn't feel guilty.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it means that whether the driver intended to harm your loved one or not, it does not change the fact that but for his actions, your loved one would not be hurt.
But it does not mean he didn't care, or that he intended to hurt your loved one.
Likewise, If someone cheats on me, it doesn't automatically mean they did it to hurt me, or that they don't love me.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
People do not live on good intentions. The pain that your loved one is experiencing is not suddenly acceptable, because the driver had good intentions, or if you prefer, did not have bad intentions. The situation is weighed against his actions. Ultimately, character is a measure of the man that you are, not the man that you intend to be.
Ofcourse the pain is not acceptable. I am not discussing that. If someone cheats on you, it is entirely up to you to decide what to do about it, and you owe your partner nothing.
However, to automatically assume that your partner who cheated on you, never really loved you, is a mistake.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Or the parties involved in my relationships have behaved more maturely and taken the relationship more seriously than the parties involved in yours.
Then again, I'm 21...im not likely to find anyone that serious for a while
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "Without sexual exclusivity, what are they committed to exactly?" If your answer is "the emotional aspects," then how is this relationship different than "friends who occasionally have sex with one another?"I am not arguing that an open-relationship is not a relationship, but that it is a different type of relationship from a romantic relationship altogether.
I see what you are saying, I'll word my question/response differently -
Situation A. The couple are committed, in love and believe they will be together forever. They however refrain from sex, choosing to wait till marriage.
Situation B. A couple for some reason, be it illness, disability etc are no longer able to engage in a traditional sexual relationships.
Are these still romantic relationships despite the absence of a sexual component (for an unknown duration) or are they just friendships? I would say yes, they are romantic relationships. If that is so then I would guess there is more to a romantic relationship then just sex. Of course I am sure everyone would agree. So therefore if a romantic relationship has more aspects then just the sexual one which set it apart from just a good friendship then I can only assume those features could exist within an open relationship.
Defining things subjectively is a poor way to define things. I could have a sexual arrangement with a friend and call it a relationship, but it would not be anything other than "friends with benefits."
Why is it a poor way to define things when it comes to something as personal as a relationship. People have different values. I have stated that if a partner cheated on me then that would likely be it, while someone else says they can forgive and forget. I would think a relationship is what to people feel and how they perceive it, not so much how people outside apply their values to it.
As to your example - a friend with benefits is that, a friend with benefits. Unless when sex is stripped away a romantic relationship in no different from a normal friendship it doesn't count. From the kinds of thing I have heard about that it is pretty much an understanding between two people that they just have fun sex without commitments or any real emotional hangups. They are not something a person classifies as a deep romantic relationship. If you were engaged in one and you considered, and more importantly felt, that it is a real relationship, or more then just casual sex, then it sounds like you would be wanting more out of it then your friend with benefits.
And it goes back to what I asked above - is there more to a romantic relationship then sex? I would say yes. If so then "friends with benefits" wouldn't count since that is simply sex with a friend, not the understanding/connection between a romantically involved couple.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraThe flaw in your comparison is that in situations A and B they're not having sex with anyone, in the open relationship they are having sex with people other than the one they're in the realtionship with. One case there is no sex, the other there is.I see what you are saying, I'll word my question/response differently -
Situation A. The couple are committed, in love and believe they will be together forever. They however refrain from sex, choosing to wait till marriage.
Situation B. A couple for some reason, be it illness, disability etc are no longer able to engage in a traditional sexual relationships.
Are these still romantic relationships despite the absence of a sexual component (for an unknown duration) or are they just friendships? I would say yes, they are romantic relationships. If that is so then I would guess there is more to a romantic relationship then just sex. Of course I am sure everyone would agree. So therefore if a romantic relationship has more aspects then just the sexual one which set it apart from just a good friendship then I can only assume those features could exist within an open relationship. [/B]
Sorry, it just bugs me to see flaws like that, even if I agree with you. I can't help but point flaws out... I'm sorta like a beta tester/plot hole finder on some projects...
Originally posted by Creshosk
The flaw in your comparison is that in situations A and B they're not having sex with anyone, in the open relationship they are having sex with people other than the one they're in the realtionship with. One case there is no sex, the other there is.Sorry, it just bugs me to see flaws like that, even if I agree with you. I can't help but point flaws out... I'm sorta like a beta tester/plot hole finder on some projects...
No, you missed the point. The question was if a relationship is not sexually exclusive then what exactly is being committed to - they might as well just be friends having sex. I an trying to get across that a relationship is more then just sex, thus questioning whether there are other aspects of a relationship beyond sex.
To this end I presented two examples with sex removed completely and asked that in such examples is it still a romantic relationship or are they just friends. Because it seems to be implied in a way here that sexual exclusivity is one of the criteria for two peoples interactions to be defined as a committed relationship, thus putting a significant emphasis on sex being a defining part of a relationship rather then just an expression of it.
The opposite to those cases being a couple who have agreed on an open relationship - that is they may or may not have sex outside of it with another person, but the aspects other then sex that exist in a sexually exclusive relationship or a sexless relationship could still potentially exist in a sexually open relationship as well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
We should not lie here, sweetycheeks. The quote of Rogue Jedi there was a reply to you, not to me. It was certainly not a question aimed at me....in fact, it wasn't a question at all. Lets keep it fair and straight here, mkay? I agree with you in a way, though I would not damn anyone that would choose one food over another.
Hey **** you dont accuse me of lying every man and his dog is liar. Anyway first you said its not a question and then you said it was.....anyway eventhough it doesnt have a question mark after it seemed like a question and I dont think it was aimed specifically at me, I dont see why it couldnt have been aimed at you. It was more like he made a statement and wanted somebody to comment on it.
Originally posted by Bardock42It doesn't follow. His response in question didn't quote anyone and it doesn't follow for it to be aimed at Alf. It fits if Alf's post in question just before RJ's post in question was absent.
We should not lie here, sweetycheeks. The quote of Rogue Jedi there was a reply to you, not to me. It was certainly not a question aimed at me....in fact, it wasn't a question at all. Lets keep it fair and straight here, mkay?
And though it also has the error of an obviously expecting an answer and not having a question mark. Despite the flawed syntax it makes sense for it to be a question aimed at you. Rather than something that shifter from a question being aimed at alf to not a question at all.
It appears like you're dodging... is there a particular reason why it seems this way?
(I mean other than the blame shift and decrying the state of it being a question)