Voiced by this guy
rack.3.mshcdn.com/.../...-3d-video--8f48b8a723.jpg
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
rs1206.pbsrc.com/.../timothypepper_1m2.gif~c200
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...Theory_of_Love.svg.png
This is but one of the legends of which the people speak...
Long ago, there existed a planet where a powerful golden triangle lay hidden. It was a prosperous land blessed with green forests, tall mountains, and peace.
But one day, a man of great evil found the golden power and took it for himself. With its strength at his command, he spread darkness across the planet. But then, when all hope had died, and the hour of doom seemed at hand...
... a young boy clothed in green appeared as if from nowhere. Wielding the blade of evil's bane, he sealed the dark one away and gave the land light.
This boy, who traveled through time to save the land, was known as the Hero of Love. The boy's tale was passed down through generations until it became legend... But then, a day came when a fell wind began to blow across the planet. The great evil that all thought had been forever sealed away by the hero once again crept forth from the depths of the earth, eager to resume its dark designs.
The people believed that the Hero of Love would again come to save them... But the hero did not appear. Faced by an onslaught of evil, the people could do nothing but appeal to the Heavens. In their last hour, as doom drew nigh, they left their future in the hands of fate.
What became of that Planet? None remain who know.
The memory of it vanished, but its legend survived on the wind's breath. On a certain island, it became customary to garb boys in green when they came of age. Clothed in the green of fields, they aspired to find heroic blades and cast down evil. The elders wished only for the youths to know courage like the hero of legend.
I disagree. I do not think you need to have sex just to be romantically attracted to someone, which would lead to a romantic relationship.
As an asexual male with homoromantic feelings, it's often difficult to explain to others (uncles, friends, etc.) how I can be interested in a boy but not want sex from him at all. And it's not that hard, honestly. Intimacy to me is more about sex, because with a boy I love and would be in a relationship with I could hold hands, maybe kiss, and that's the only boy I would do that with. I wouldn't do it with my friends.
It's actually really weird to me how people have been saying that they need sex to love someone.
I accidentally voted disagree but I do agree because I was in a relationship with a guy we did have sex but there was a large portion of the relationship that we went without it. There was no sexual attraction between us at least on my end I just cared about him but I didn't love him and we only had sex because I was horny and sex is a couple thing to do lol but it was weird because i didn't enjoy it. Besides that I didn't feel connected when we were intimate and intimacy didn't feel like intimacy it felt forced. I felt like we should have just been friends. I don't think a relationship is a strong friendship mutual interests and respect there is ore too it there is love, loyalty, a connection, compatibility. romance etc. There are people that have sexual chemistry and don't have a relationship or even a friendship or they are friends with benefits. I think platonic friendships are when people generally like each other and they vibe together with a relationship you can dislike the person you love sometimes and still want to be with them lol.
I disagree. I think that a good relationship has a higher or different level of intimacy than with just a friendship. Plus, you said lack of physical intimacy, but the title just said without sex. Sex wouldn't be the only type of physical intimacy. There's still the little things like cuddling and hand-holding, although that you may or may not do with a friend (I wouldn't), and kissing (of various intensities, for example quick pecks to making out). I don't think sex should be the only thing that separates friendship from a romantic relationship. If that was the only difference, why would people even be in relationships when they could probably just find someone else to have a one-night stand with or masturbate? I think there's a different kind of intimacy between the two, although the difference may be particular to the couple.
I of all people would consider there being a big difference between a romantic relationship and a close friendship, seeing as I have interest in a romantic relationship but not a sexual one. (I'm asexual.)
"Plus, you said lack of physical intimacy, but the title just said without sex."
I should have changed that.
could you list the criteria a person should have for you to consider them a close friend, and then list the criteria a person should have for you to want a relationship with them?
Okay, sure. To have a romantic relationship with someone, it'd take a higher level of trust with me than it would take for someone to be my close friends. I have pretty bad trust issues. I don't tell people things that I maybe should and keep most things to myself. I can have a close friend without there being such a high level of trust. I can have a great time with someone without having to be able to confide certain things in them. However, if I was dating someone, they would have to have great amount of trust with me, or I'd feel like I could never be as open with them as I'd like to be.
There has to be romantic attraction for a relationship. I know that sounds like a no-brainer, but I've noticed that I have had friends, especially one in particular, who are the sort of guy I'd go for. But even though they hit most if not all of my criteria for an ideal guy, I didn't feel any romantic attraction to them, had no desire to date them, and couldn't possibly imagine being in any way
being physical with them in terms of things like I already said such as kissing. I honestly can't give a specific reason to why I do feel inclined to date some people and not others regardless of what I had in mind. So I guess I'll just say there has to be romantic attraction, just a feeling that makes me want to have them as more than a friend, although not sexually, if that makes sense.
Although I'm not sure if this example is the kind of answer you were looking for, but someone I'd date would have to either be asexual like myself or have a low enough libido (or just high self control) that they'd be willing to give up sex for me, because I don't want to ever do it. As for friends, I really don't care about their libido or orientation.
I'd have to be physically comfortable with someone I was dating. What I mean by that is for the most part, I don't really like people touching me. There are a few people I am okay with receiving hugs and such by, but for most, I get pretty jumpy. I
could sustain a platonic friendship without ever having much physical contact, but with a romantic partner it's another story. I do desire kissing and stuff like that, so if I wasn't comfortable with doing that sort of thing with them, that would be a problem.
Sensual attraction. For me this is borderline the same thing as romantic attraction. If you didn't already know, sensual attraction is wanting to kiss/hug/that sort of thing with someone.
I'm not sure how good of an answer this was, if I explained it well or not, but I think this is the best way I can answer. It's kind of hard to explain. But, overall, it's pretty much being romantically/sensually attracted to them, whereas I wouldn't feel that way about someone who was just a friend. I hope this made my perspective understandable.
You're very well spoken, and that was a good response..
but I'm still confused 😔
I get the deeper trust thing where you'd feel comfortable telling them things you wouldn't tell a close friend. However I'm still confused on the romantic/sensual attraction thing.
So romantic attraction just means you feel drawn to kiss, cuddle, and hold hands with them but you don't know what it is about them that makes you feel that way?
also couldn't you classify that as physical intimacy?
Thank you ^-^
When you said you meant to change that, I thought you meant to eliminate having no physical chemistry as part of the criteria, although I now think you meant to change the title from strictly sex to all physical intimacy. Well, if we're speaking ALL physical intimacy, the line between platonic and romantic would be hard to distinguish, but still there as romantic attraction.
The kissing and related stuff type attraction would be sensual attraction. For most people, I would assume that that would automatically be there and kind of considered the same thing. In my mind what the difference is is that sensual, the physical intimacy aspect that we would be eliminating, is just that--physical--while romantic attraction is more desiring an emotional intimate type of thing. For me personally, I have had one without the other. For example, there have been guys that I thought were cute and I had the brief although clearly there urge to kiss them, sensual attraction, but had no
want to be emotionally close with them or date them at all. So, I guess what I'm saying is that sexual and sensual attraction are purely physical, whilst romantic attraction is more mental/emotional. Although, thinking about it now, I think sensual attraction honestly may fall into both categories, both emotional and physical. The way I see it, having sex, for most people, would fill any sexual urges/desires they naturally have, which gives them a reason to have sex, regardless of whether or not they love the person they're having sex with. On the other hand, I think kissing is something that (theoretically, as I actually haven't kissed anyone) would only be enjoyable if you cared about the person you were kissing, as I imagine you wouldn't have a biological need/want to kiss. (I am of course speaking about the majority of people, although this point wouldn't really apply to asexuals because they're not getting those urges.) I'm not sure whether what I just said is contradictory since
I said I've felt the urge to kiss people I had no romantic interest in, but I am seriously digressing here. Back to the original point.
So, the point here is that I feel like romantic attraction to someone, although I can't give a reason why it happens, is desiring the emotional intimacy, with the other stuff like kissing being a separate thing, if not closely linked to it.
so to you the differences between a close friendship and a relationship are that that
-you have a deeper level of trust /feel comfortable telling them thing you wouldn't nessesarily want to tell the close friend
-have a desire to kiss, cuddle and hole hands with them (however you don't know what causes you to have this desire for some people but not others)
-and for heterosexuals they have the -urge- to have sex with them (although they dint nessesarily have to act on it)
correct?
Basically, yes. I can really explain it no better than I already have.
Do you still personally believe that there's a no real difference, or have I succeeded in changing your mind?
eh, well I've seen some other posters say that sex is the main difference. ( see ShyZombie's post).
I think it kinda depends. Like for asexuals maybe it's different. As a generalization, I think the differences would be
-slightly deeper level of emotional intimacy (although I've heard of girls telling their friends things that they don't tell their significant other)
-physical intimacy cuddling, kissing, holding hands, messages, and sex.
Like some people will have a great connection with someone but the only thing that stops them from seeing the other as a romantic partner is lack of sexual attraction.
I suppose that's fair. Perhaps this is only how I differentiate between them for myself and for other people it's different.
I think this really depends on how the individual person defines a close friendship, relationship, and physical intimacy. If a relationship doesn't have any intimacy at all, then yes, I think it's no different than a close friendship. However, intimacy doesn't have to be only sex. It could be kissing, holding hands, cuddling, and having a specific romantic/intimate way of talking to each other, etc. Those are things I personally would not do with a friend of the opposite sex, even a close friend. So, for me, even without sex, a relationship is different than a close friendship.
Exactly. That's a great explanation of what I was thinking. I'm asexual but not aromantic, so I desire a romantic relationship without the sex. I'm tired of people thinking that there's no point in dating an asexual, that that relationship would really only be a platonic friendship, not romance. I like that someone understands the difference and how a relationship doesn't need sex in order to be romantic rather than platonic.
@InconspicuousBox yes, I agree. I'm not asexual but I just don't think sex is the only difference between a friendship and a relationship. That concept seems kind of silly to me since romance and intimacy does not only mean sex :)
Yep, this about sums it up.
To this day, even though most girls disagree, I've yet to hear an actual difference between a relationship and a friendship.
That's because their isn't a difference aside from sex. Admitting that sex is what makes a friendship into something as important as a relationship challenges our cultures ideals about the value of sex. Our culture just has a very unhealthy attitude about sex, and teaches women that they aren't suppose to value sex.
You can see how the women responding are over reacting as they state that a relationships isn't "all about sex". No one is saying it is all about sex, just that sex is a part of what makes a relationship. It isn't just one or the other. Without sex it is just friendship. Without friendship it is just a hook up. The fact is it takes both sex and friendship, but our culture has really given women a bad impression as to the value of sex in a relationship.
Opinion
14Opinion
I'd first ask what is your definition of 'relationship?
Colloquially we'd say 'social and sexual monogamy'. Socially known to be exclusive and sexually exclusive with your partner. So both sides can be a 'relationship'. One where friends/family know you're 'taken' but still sleep with others and the other where you're just sleeping together without making it public knowledge.
To say that a relationship must have sex in it denigrates all the relationships of people that physically cannot have sex.
So sure, you can have a relationship without physical intimacy and sexual chemistry, in theory, just as you can have physical intimacy and sexual chemistry without a strong friendship etc.
Okay, in your case we say that a 'close friendship' is a platonic relationship that isn't socially or sexually monogamous. You're 'friends' but give no public statements on exclusivity. You don't share sexual or financial benefits that are common in social and sexual relationships. This is what I put forward is a 'close friendship'.
Colloquially, a 'relationship' as in, social and sexual monogamy, or polyamory if your relationship is sexually 'open', is a partnership where you publicly claim exclusivity either socially, sexually or both.
By your definition the only difference between the two is sex, I argue that there are other factors, such as shared economic stability, that make a 'relationship'.
Lol looking at the poll its kind of funny. Most guys agreed, most girls disagreed.
I will have to agree with you. Because sexual attraction is an important part of a romantic relationship. the couple may decide to have sex later or save it for whatever reason, but they do plan to eventually have it. If you dont want sex in the relationship then I don't know... how can u not want sex lol. It makes the relationship way more intimate and special.
I don't know. The only relationship I've been in where the physical intimacy wasn't there was with a guy with whom our only real connection was the physical. It was always very clear to me that was all we had. So, although we were living together it was like some horrid frosty marriage where the couple refuse to split just to spite one another.
I can't really understand what the differences would be between a close platonic and a non-sexual spouse set up. I suppose asking someone who claims to be asexual would be the best way to find out, something I don't understand myself...
I've literally just woke up so only skimmed it, but it doesn't explain too much as I trust my best friends a lot, I'd say I trust them as much as my partner. With regards to intimacy, I like being intimate with my close friends too. We enjoy having a cuddle, going out or staying in and it just being the two of us. We understand each other and support each other extremely well and have both said that we feel the need to have this relationship in our lives. We've discussed our need to have a close friend, how it's almost as important as our romantic relationship. Maybe this is why I have a hard time figuring how you would define them when sex is not involved.
I shall read more of her comments once the sleep leaves my eyes, ha!
Yeah her descriptions were still kinda vague. I think the difference kinda varys from person to person since different people might define relationships differently. However as a generalization I think physical intimacy and sexual chemistry are usually the difference.
some people got agressive over this question.
This was one of the responses
"If you only determine a relationship as romantic based on how often your dick is pleasured, then I don't think you should be in a relationship"
😢
Yeah Bandit, you filthy misogynist! Haha!
I swear some people need a good fucking to get them to chill the out, ha! I jest (but I don't really :) ).
Did this person offer a reason as to how you would define the two? Or just tell you you're a dick for not knowing?
Useless, have a big hissy fit and refuse to explain why you're a dick... I'll have a hunt for that one later...
Ha! I'll try not to be rude, promise! ;)
Well kissing (and other sexual activities for the ones that are up for that) make u feel more connected to ur SO. So I would say it would b mostly a very intimate friendship without at least any kind of more chemical lol activity.
However that does not mean that these two people wouldn't love each other if they didn't have sex or didn't kiss.
I just think, in my opinion, it is not as enjoyable nd u might feel more distant sometimes. Words and expressing feelings or doing activities together can only go so far in terms of conveying to the otehr person how much u love them.
Humans also like feeling wanted as a sexual being by the ones they love.
I disagree. When you are friends with someone, you only feel platonic attraction. But when you experience romantic attraction, it turns into more than friendship. Sexual attraction is very different from romantic attraction, and only romantic attraction is required for it to be more than a friendship.
This hits deep, like, I'm in an open relationship because our regular life is "so convenient", but he's my best friend & doesn't want to let me go. Or better himself so we can sleep together again (he's morbidly obese now & refuses to take care of himself, & I'm very worried, & though I got healthier he got unhealthier, & viagra doesn't really help...)
It's just a friendship, the romantic part fades away due to the lack of hormonal exchanges. Like old cute couples.
I have to admit, since I've been in an open relationship & sleeping with a few people, after years of monogamy & this alllll planned out & discussed, safely approved, it's like... a friend saying "Go for it. Get your fill, get off & come home."
Then, I kinda don't want him to kiss me or hug me anymore.
Without weekly or daily sex like before, it's like we're just best friends...
Yeah instead of bettering himself he's allll good with me sleeping with other guys & its only a matter of time before I end up separating, losing everything we built. He loves me so much, he loves being a loser more. Honestly, I thought this would be his wake up call, since I really like a few suitors. I'm no slut, it's like I'm dating again & well, I choose gentlemanly nerds. You know nice guys finish last, not true. Only people like my "fiance" of 6 years does.
If sex never happens then I believe that it is, but if the period without sex is just a period that people are getting ready to do so, then I disagree. I think that if the relationship is serious enough sex will happen at some point.
I disagree strongly. Romantic relationships don't have to have intimacy to be more than friendships. My boyfriend and I obviously aren't JUST friends but there's no way we're going to get intimate any time soon. There are even married couples out there that don't have intimacy in their relationships yet it is still a romantic relationship. The real connection comes through love and infatuation and trust. Not sex.
Meaning no disrespect, this really isn't a matter you can comment on with any kind of insight. You are still a very young person who has yet to experience both types of relationship. A 13 year old's relationship will have very very little to do with an adult one.
@GirlScoutsRevenge that's nothing I haven't heard before yet it doesn't stop me. I've experienced more than I think any teenager should experience and I'm known for being very mature. Age is but a number. I can still give advice and insight on things like this even if people choose to look at my age over my opinion. I realize you mean no disrespect but there have been countless times that I've encountered people (online and real life) shooting me down because I'm a teenage girl. That in itself has helped me grow in maturity. So back to my point--age shouldn't matter.
No, it does matter. How many long term relationships have you been in by age thirteen? I'm all for disregarding age for a lot of things, but you have to face facts: you do not have the years to be able to have had the experience. You are still a child whether you want to think that or not. Maturity doesn't mean anything if you do not have the experience.
@GirlScoutsRevenge unlike most teenagers, I know I don't know everything and I know I'm not yet an adult and I know I'm not perfect. I was in a relationship for 10 months and I'm not proud of it but now I've had an amazing boyfriend for almost five months. The one for ten months wanted things like sex and it was just flat out annoying but I was too much of a wimp to try to break up with him because of how he might have reacted. Him breaking up with me is how I became so close with my boyfriend now. As far as experience, I have two half-brothers whose relationships I have witnessed. Sure, they aren't my personal experiences but I've learned from them.
If you're never gonna have sex or kiss or anything then yeah I'd say it's a friendship, unless you're asexual and that's how relationships work the best for you. I'm not asexual so I say how they relationships should be.
On the other hand if you're not having sex or kissing or whatever YET but plan on doing it eventually then yes it's a relationship, I guess.
Other forms of physical contact such as kissing, hugging, personal distance. Also an obvious huge factor is the way you feel about that person. You can have insanely close friends but you don't feel about them the way you feel about a SO. You don't want to be with them as much, you don't admire them in the same way, you don't wanna look at them all day, you know what I mean
Yes, I agree. If there's no sex (or no desire for sexual intimacy to occur at some point), then I simply could not fully develop feelings of romantic love.
You know how you often hear people say that they "want a lover who can also be their best friend" too? Well yeah, I think that desire illustrates that romantic love is basically a foundation of friendship, to which the addition of physical intimacy and sexual chemistry is made.
Which is why I think the friends with benefits thing is stupid. You're in a relationship. You're just being awkward about it.
I think usually with friends with benefits they aren't actually close friends, it's mostly about the benefits. It's just that friends with benefits sounds a lot better than fuckbuddies which is probably more acurate. Generally they are just two acquaintances who fuck not close friends with mutual respect.
no? if you're both in love and aware of that and also in a relationship then it's not just friendship, if it was then cheating and doing what ever the f*ck you want would be meaningless, plus if you are in a relationship you don't have sex right away or am i wrong? it is definitely not about sex it's about loving and caring for each other
Not having sex right away doesn't mean that sex isn't still important to the relationship. It just takes time to build up to having sex for a lot of people. The idea of having a healthy sex life sometime in the future is still a huge part of that relationship.
yes but it means that sex is not needed for a relationship, it's about two people loving each other unconditionally, sex is for fun and pleasure and a friend of mine is in a relationship and noq they're 2 years together and never had sex and it's so obvious to everyone that he loves her so much he'd never leave her for simple pleasure
Your life is not your own and is rather shared in a long term committed relationship. You do not do this to your friends unless they are family (which they are most likely not). Sex or no sex has nothing to do with it.
I agree! Being in a relationship with someone you care about is a wonderful experience, i think sex with someone you love is important for a healthy relationship. Two people living together without sex would be more like being together for companionship.
Sex with someone you don't love is just sex , a relationship with someone you love without the sex is just a companion.
Kissing leads to sex if two people don't want sex with each other , they sure as hell won't want to kiss. People who don't have sex are not in a realationship, it is a companionship
Sex is needed for two people to have a healthy relationship. I couldn't be with a guy who didn't want sex with me.
Without sex for how long? I believe there can be a period for that but If It's non-existent in "a relationship" I wouldn't call It a relationship unless it's between two asexual's. Sex is important in most relationships, a lock of sex is equal to an issue.
No, not necessarily. Some people in strong, committed relationships wait until marriage. And just because you have sex with someone doesn't mean they love you.
but it will have to exist sexual chemistry still
I voted disagree, but I accidentally skipped over the "and sexual chemistry" part. Generally, if you have no physical intimacy and no sexual chemistry, then I would tend to say it's a close friendship.
Its not always about sex!!! You relate doesn't mean that you have to fuck that person, if you're are compatible to that person and live that person more than a friend, if you know that when you wake up the person will ther shoe only matter not sex!
That's precisely how I feel. I'm not going to date, or be in a relationship with, someone who doesn't want to have sex with me.
I would feel VERY unfulfilled in the relationship, and I'm not going to budge on that either.
I agree. I think its why a lot of young people get crushes on their friends. (Because friendships and non sexual relationships are very similar.) Even a sexual relationship is very close to a closefriendship. Me and and girlfriend are pretty much best friends who have sex a lot.
I've heard some describe their marriage in such a way.
If you only determine a relationship as romantic based on how often your dick is pleasured, then I don't think you should be in a relationship.
You can choose how to define your relationship. Nobody can dictate that for you.
A close fiendship, with (FWB) or without sex isn't exclusive.
Asexuals who have romantic relationships will definitely disagree
I voted disagree, because I think the emotional commitment plus the exclusivity set a relationship apart from a friendship
I think most people would call this "love", but in my opinion only a little "crush" does qualify as well. You wouldn't say you had fallen in love with all of your friends, would you?
Exclusivity should be pretty self-explanatory as in no other partners allowed. But I'm not sure whether this is a valid criterion hence people these days do have things like "open" relationships as well. But if it was: You are allowed to have many friendships simultaneously, but only one romance, therefore it's different.
Plus most people would consider fucking someone else outside of their sexless relationship cheating. They wouldn't if they were only friends
Heck, if you DO get jealous it's more than just friendship.
a lot of the time "crushes" are based primarily on appearance.
Ok with exclusivity you're talking about SEXUAL exclusivity
so besides physical intimacy (sex cuddling, kssing, holding hands) what does a romantic partner get that a close platonic friend of the opposite gender wouldn't from you?
You mean friend vs platonic lover, right?
Well first off, you wouldn't ever truly consider to marry someone who was just a friend or live together with them all your life. Also sharing a bed ( nonsexually of course) and shared finances, possibly adopting children together etc. I can totally see that.
Clearly, you wouldn't be that committed to a friend and maybe only see them a few times a week.
And I wouldn't hold hands with only a friend as well
i wouldn't know as been having sex with my female friends since school days an we're a;; still friends
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions