Can Love and Sex be Separate?

Originally posted by Creshosk
But with the no sex examples they're still not having sex with other people. You could still call them sexually exclusive.

So your analogy/comparison is still flawed.

No, in that case what is the difference between them and friends who don't have sex?

In case b. (drawn from a documentary that was on in Australia a couple of months ago) the sexual exclusivity is not by choice. And in such cases it is not uncommon for the party who is able to/or no longer feels they are able to participate in sex to tell their partner if they wanted to move on/or seek such from other sources then they would understand. Do they take the other? I have no idea since I only saw a commercial but humans being humans I think some would.

The reality behind my point remains - if sex is removed from a relationship (as opposed to existing and being exclusive or existing and being nonexclusive) are there still other factors that remain that set it apart from "just friends"?

Or in another way - if you had a pie chart made up of features of a relationship sex would be a part of the pie, but the only part? No. Thus in a relationship without sex or without sexual exclusivity there would still remain features common to a sexually exclusive relationship which would still set it apart from just a friendship. The act of making sex nonexclusive would not remove all features of a committed, romantic relationship.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, in that case what is the difference between them and friends who don't have sex?

>>Cuddling<<

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
In case b. (drawn from a documentary that was on in Australia a couple of months ago) the sexual exclusivity is not by choice.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And in such cases it is not uncommon for the party who is able to/or no longer feels they are able to participate in sex to tell their partner if they wanted to move on/or seek such from other sources then they would understand. Do they take the other? I have no idea since I only saw a commercial but humans being humans I think some would.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The reality behind my point remains - if sex is removed from a relationship (as opposed to existing and being exclusive or existing and being nonexclusive) are there still other factors that remain that set it apart from "just friends"?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Or in another way - if you had a pie chart made up of features of a relationship sex would be a part of the pie, but the only part? No. Thus in a relationship without sex or without sexual exclusivity there would still remain features common to a sexually exclusive relationship which would still set it apart from just a friendship. The act of making sex nonexclusive would not remove all features of a committed, romantic relationship.

Commiting a logical fallacy does not render your conclusion invalid. Merely the argument for said conclusion. To think otherwise would be to commit a fallacy of its own.

I think we have established that the subject at hand depends on the couple.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The amount of physical intimacy that would and could still be displayed toward one another.

>>Cuddling<<

Step One: I was asked "without sexual exclusivity what are you committing to? You could be just friends having sex."

I asked is there more to a relationship the sex and it being exclusive, while using different relationships as a way to look at features that set apart friendship/romantic relationship.

But there you go, you answered the question - even if a couple has an open relationship things such as cuddling set them apart from normal friends.

be that as it may it is still present.

Because it being there by default is the same as couples choosing it?

Some would. Though then the question of intent could be raised on those who do.

Naturally, and it is a whole different light if a wife/husband has to seek physical comfort elsewhere due to things beyond either their control? Apparently in those cases love and nonsexual exclusivity can be reconciled.

Yes. I'm not saying your premise/conclusion is flawed. Just your method of approach.

Well since I still wonder if you get what I am getting at I have to question that, since it was never about commitment, it was a look at two cases that are romantic relationships where sex is not an the same type of issue as it is in open/exclusive relationships. As in - what do these people not having sex have that still sets them apart from just friends not having sex?

Correct. Your premise/conclusion is not what I was questioning. Merely the means by which it was reached.

Sigh.

committing a logical fallacy does not render your conclusion invalid. Merely the argument for said conclusion. To think otherwise would be to commit a fallacy of its own.

Logical Fallacy? Once again - it was not an argument, it was two examples in which sex is not the same issue either a sexually exclusive relationship or a nonexclusive one, committment was not relevent as it was a way to examine features other then sex that set apart a romantic relationship from a normal friendship.

I think we have established that the subject at hand depends on the couple.

*Throws up hands*

Exactly!

✅

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Step One: I was asked "without sexual exclusivity what are you committing to? You could be just friends having sex."

I asked is there more to a relationship the sex and it being exclusive, while using different relationships as a way to look at features that set apart friendship/romantic relationship.

But there you go, you answered the question - even if a couple has an open relationship things such as cuddling set them apart from normal friends.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because it being there by default is the same as couples choosing it?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Naturally, and it is a whole different light if a wife/husband has to seek physical comfort elsewhere due to things beyond either their control? Apparently in those cases love and nonsexual exclusivity can be reconciled.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well since I still wonder if you get what I am getting at I have to question that, since it was never about commitment, it was a look at two cases that are romantic relationships where sex is not an the same type of issue as it is in open/exclusive relationships. As in - what do these people not having sex have that still sets them apart from just friends not having sex?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sigh.

Logical Fallacy? Once again - it was not an argument,

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
it was two examples in which sex is not the same issue either a sexually exclusive relationship or a nonexclusive one, committment was not relevent as it was a way to examine features other then sex that set apart a romantic relationship from a normal friendship.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
*Throws up hands*

Exactly!

Again, I was not attacking your premise or your conclusion, merely the steps you were taking to go from premise to conclusion.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I think we have established that the subject at hand depends on the couple.

Yeah and I was pretty sure thats what everybody would agree on.

Originally posted by Creshosk
It 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.

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)

Are you guys out of your mind? I am not dodging, I answered the question as soon as I was asked it.

I feel I should not be accused of dodging because someone randomly replied to someone else with a statement that they would like to be a question. How should I have figured a) that it was a question and b) that it was aimed at me?

I was accused of severe bullshit, read it back and then tell me again that I dodged so I can be sure that you do it with malicious intent so I can call you a liar.

Originally posted by Alfheim
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.

I did not reply to that part so I did not dodge or disregard it. It wasn't aimed at me. Don't accuse me of that stuff and then distort the facts to make it appear your accusing was okay.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you guys out of your mind? I am not dodging, I answered the question as soon as I was asked it.

I feel I should not be accused of dodging because someone randomly replied to someone else with a statement that they would like to be a question. How should I have figured a) that it was a question and b) that it was aimed at me?

I was accused of severe bullshit, read it back and then tell me again that I dodged so I can be sure that you do it with malicious intent so I can call you a liar.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you guys out of your mind? I am not dodging, I answered the question as soon as I was asked it.

I feel I should not be accused of dodging because someone randomly replied to someone else with a statement that they would like to be a question. How should I have figured a) that it was a question and b) that it was aimed at me?

I was accused of severe bullshit, read it back and then tell me again that I dodged so I can be sure that you do it with malicious intent so I can call you a liar.

Dude, don't mistate what happened and that won't happen.

I did not reply to that part so I did not dodge or disregard it. It wasn't aimed at me. Don't accuse me of that stuff and then distort the facts to make it appear your accusing was okay.

Look you know, its just looks like a misunderstadning to me but it was a question, hell you even said it was a question. I dont think it was aimed at me, hell he didnt even quote me. Just because its straiht afer my post doesnt mean it was aimed at me either. At the end of the day he made a statement and he wanted a response.

and still no answer.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and still no answer.

Well actually I think he did in the end but that was after you asked him I think three more times or something.

I think he basically said it would suck.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and still no answer.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But then it is not going well. Well would be that we discussed it and she did it because she wanted to and I was fine with it. Lying to me is a whole different thing.

If she pretended that she would not cheat on me and then did then I wouldn't take it as easy. But if we discussed it and decided it is okay that would be ... well...okay.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well actually I think he did in the end but that was after you asked him I think three more times or something.

I think he basically said it would suck.

"restate" being a stretch here as it wasn't stated in the first place.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Look you know, its just looks like a misunderstadning to me but it was a question, hell you even said it was a question. I dont think it was aimed at me, hell he didnt even quote me. Just because its straiht afer my post doesnt mean it was aimed at me either. At the end of the day he made a statement and he wanted a response.

Either way, I answered the question once I was asked it, can we go on now? RJ, reveal what you asked me the question for, what you derive from it, etc. Bring on your argument. Do it!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, you lying scum, he asked me once, I asked him to restate the question, he did, I answered.

"restate" being a stretch here as it wasn't stated in the first place.

Whatever.

Originally posted by Bardock42

N-no I didn't say it was a question.

Y-yeah you did.

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.

What you said was that it was a question aimed at me (which you cant prove specifically) which therefore implies it was a question. Now im aware afterwards that you said it wasnt a question but anybody with common sense can see that you initially called it a question because the statment can be percieved as one.

He made a statement and he wanted a response in that sense it was a question. In any rate I think im being quite fair here I think its just a misunderstanding but you're just being horrible about it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yeah, the angle you were taking was not helping anything. Rather than simply asking if there is something else and using a flawed analogy, its better to simply answer how it is different from "just friends having sex".

Something I had done early by mentioning the emotional side of things but the question came back - thus my different approach. As in using couples with a different sexual nature. I'm not sure why it is so hard - it had nothing to so with the commitment it was a question of what set them apart from friends not having sex if an open-relationship can be accused of just being friends having sex.

To emphasise - nothing to do with commitment. Not a point I was trying to make. It was not an anology, an argument, it was merely a question posted to try and get an admittance that there is more to a romantic relationship then sex (be it exclusive or otherwise) thus mooting the claim that an open relationship could just as well be "friends having sex".

Makes you wonder how much value they placed on that single aspect if they're willing to "move on" and leave the one they're with doesn't it?

Well I was more talking about the ones who stay in the relationship but might seek some outside assistance in that side of things. And hey, clearly many people put to much value on it, or one would think there would be no affairs/cheating going on.

Again the physical intamacy, cuddling, holding hands, romantic candlelight dinners. Take you pick of various other activities that you would normally do with a lover that you would not do with a friend.

Which was what I was trying to get admitted (as well as other connections beyond purely physical expressions).

It was a flawed analogy to prove that an open relationship has more to offer the couple than purely sex.

And a rather flawed way to do it as well.

Sigh. If you say so.

That's what I said earlier on as well. It's not something I'd choose, but I can't fault other couples for doing it.

Indeed.

Well actually I think he did in the end but that was after you asked him I think three more times or something.

I think he basically said it would suck.

What is this question that is proving such a sticking point?

Originally posted by Creshosk

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
either it would be OK or not. which is it?

Originally posted by Alfheim
What you said was that it was a question aimed at me (which you cant prove specifically) which therefore implies it was a question.

Look, my linguistically challenged friend (idiot), what I said was: "It was certainly not a question aimed at me (not only but also) because of the fact that IT WAS NOT A QUESTION AT ALL!!!"

Originally posted by Alfheim
He made a statement and he wanted a response in that sense it was a question. In any rate I think im being quite fair here I think its just a misunderstanding but you're just being horrible about it.

There are two possibilities, either you are doing it on purpose in which case you are a lying idiot or you are misunderstanding it in which case you are just an idiot. Either way, stay out of things you do not understand (everything) we have Rogue Jedi for that department already.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You moron.

.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Look, my linguistically challenged friend (idiot), what I said was: "It was certainly not a question aimed at me (not only but also) because of the fact that IT WAS NOT A QUESTION AT ALL!!!"

And what? Did you use the word because? You started out by saying it was a question and then you said in fact it wasnt a question at all. To me it sounds like retraction because anybody can see the statement was a question. Theres no question mark there so you can say that its not one. Hell you even tried to say that it was aimed specifically at me, so I just think your bloody lying.

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.

Hell its just looks like you changed your mind half way through. Furthermore why was it aimed specifically at me. Did he quote me did he use my name. So I guess your going to tell me im an idiot for not understandiung that it was aimed at me.

Originally posted by Bardock42

There are two possibilities, either you are doing it on purpose in which case you are a lying idiot or you are misunderstanding it in which case you are just an idiot. Either way, stay out of things you do not understand (everything) we have Rogue Jedi for that department already.

O **** off.