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.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
The amount of physical intimacy that would and could still be displayed toward one another.
>>Cuddling<<
be that as it may it is still present.
Some would. Though then the question of intent could be raised on those who do.
Yes. I'm not saying your premise/conclusion is flawed. Just your method of approach.
Correct. Your premise/conclusion is not what I was questioning. Merely the means by which it was reached.
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.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
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.
Because it being there by default is the same as couples choosing it?
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.
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?
Sigh.
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.
*Throws up hands*
Exactly!
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
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".
Yes. The result is the same.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Again, I was not attacking your premise or your conclusion, merely the steps you were taking to go from premise to conclusion.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
N-no I didn't say it was a question.
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!
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.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Last edited by Deadline on Aug 6th, 2007 at 11:42 AM
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".
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.
Which was what I was trying to get admitted (as well as other connections beyond purely physical expressions).
Sigh. If you say so.
Indeed.
What is this question that is proving such a sticking point?
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Last edited by Imperial_Samura on Aug 6th, 2007 at 12:03 PM
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You moron.
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!!!"
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.
thats not an answer. all you are telling me is possible scenarios, not what you would decide. stop lollygagging and give me a definite answer.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
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.
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.
O **** off.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Last edited by Deadline on Aug 6th, 2007 at 07:46 PM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 6th, 2007 07:11 AM
