Profoundly Loving & Intimate Relationships Without A Sexual Component
- Thread starter River
- Start date
River
Well-known member
Two recently popular terms:
- fuckbuddy
- "friends" with benefits. (FWB) -- Though even Dan Savage has insisted that the "friends" part is important.
_____________
Q. What ground rules should be set for a friends-with-benefits situation?
A. (Dan Savage): "The most important ground rule: Be friends. Too many people are pointedly unfriendly to their FWBs because they don't want their FWBs "getting the wrong idea," i.e., they don't want their FWBs to think they might be interested in something more serious. The result? FWB situations that are all B and no F. No friendly gestures (friends sometimes give each other gifts), no friendly assistance (friends sometimes help each other move), no friendly concern (friends are there for each other). Don't want your FWB to get the wrong idea? Use your words to tell your FWB that a serious romance isn't in the cards. Then be a friend to your FWB."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=17917520
Last edited:
River
Well-known member
Me?
Lately, having my friends be basically supportive of my values, ideals, ... willingness to take leaps of faith in service to the same..., social service ..., ... my "work" (play, ultimately) is very important to me in relation to friendship.
If my friends are somehtat neutral in this arena -- all too common -- I'lll still welcome them as freinds if they are otherwise generally very supportive of ... well, me. And if they will ...
* Rub my furry back until I begin to purr, and purr for aboaut half an hour.
* Allow me to rub and knead their bellies (just below the navel) until they begin to purr, and purr for approximately half an hour.
... No, really, seriously... All I really need (knead) in a friend is that we really love one another. * Allow me to rub and knead their bellies (just below the navel) until they begin to purr, and purr for approximately half an hour.
Is that too much to ask?
Last edited:
River
Well-known member
Verbally? No.
Otherwise, ... Well, yes, of course!
How about you?
Yes, come to think of it, YES! I do see friendship as basically a loving relationship. If it is not, why bother?
You mean that love is a binary function, in the sense that either you love someone or you don't love them. You can't "sort of love them," or "partially love them," right?
I think that on a deep-down level I want my friends to love me, but on a relatively superficial level I am comfortable being liked (and liking them too). Does that make sense?
I think that on a deep-down level I want my friends to love me, but on a relatively superficial level I am comfortable being liked (and liking them too). Does that make sense?
River
Well-known member
Well, yeah, if forced into a corner. Yes, damn right. I want my friends to love me -- not merely tolerate me. Or merely like me a little.
Sure. But that's just the bare beginning of any conversation on the matter. If I'm hungry, and somebody offers me a type or kind of sandwitch I despise, I'll eat it rather than go hungry. If days have passed, and I've not eaten, I'll acccpet scraps from most any table -- to prevent the pains of severe hunger.
However, if I am not desperate, I'll not accept less than that which is closer to my ideal preference.
It's important to remember here that there are approximately seven billiion persons on planet Earth at the moment. Surely, some of these will volunteer some love for guys like us.
River
Well-known member
River
Well-known member
Actually, the I Know It When I See It answer is a just a bit snide and inadequate -- and a bit silly, and lazy.
Yet still, it goes half way there.
The other half of my answer is that when we really and deeply love another, we're more able and willing to commit ourselves to nururing their well-being than if we merely "like" them. When we deeply love another, we're even (somewhat, occasionally) willing to have them call us and wake us in the middle of the night
, sometimes, if they are in need and we may be able to help somehow -- even if all we can offer them is our loving ear and well-wishing (Which is likely what they will most need from us in any case).
Yet still, it goes half way there.
The other half of my answer is that when we really and deeply love another, we're more able and willing to commit ourselves to nururing their well-being than if we merely "like" them. When we deeply love another, we're even (somewhat, occasionally) willing to have them call us and wake us in the middle of the night
, sometimes, if they are in need and we may be able to help somehow -- even if all we can offer them is our loving ear and well-wishing (Which is likely what they will most need from us in any case).AzureKnight
New member
Which kind of friend? Broadly there are friends I may go to events with or play cards with; but those kinds of friendships tend to be ephemeral.
For the other kind, I want a high level of emotional intimacy, generally I know when that happens by what I'm willing to tell them about myself.
Last edited:
River
Well-known member
Thanks K.
A few more words about love.
While love may often be directed at, and given to, particular individuals, real love always overflows such containers. It always affects other lives beyond those to whom it is initially given and offered. It spills out into the world and has a ripple effect through communities, out into the wider world. It indirectly nurtures others beyond linear calculation and directedness. It inspires courage and faith (not the silly and trivial faith of untested belief in invisible gods, but faith in love itself). Love makes the best in what it is to be human possible. It supports and encourages that best, and so is a revolutionary force par excellence.
River
Well-known member
To "like" is to appreciate. And appreciation is a very large portion of what love is. But mere liking falls short of loving in this respect: I may like Sean very much, but my liking him may not inspire me to give of myself to him, to take risks for him, to sacrifice some of my personal wants in service to him and his well-being. Love, ultimatley, is service to the well-being of other/s. Not at the expense of one's self, ultimately. But as a genuine benefit to one's self -- on account of the fundamental non-separation between self and other. Love is the unifying force in the cosmos. It unifies by perceiving that fundamental non-separateness and acting upon it in service to it.
Last edited:
River
Well-known member
My own view is ... Yes. Yes, certainly. (Almost certainly? Is anything certain?)
One can even -- I think -- deeply dislike a person's habits and behavior, and want little or nothing to do with them -- and still love them. It can be very difficult to actively love someone with whom we are experiencing dislike. It can even seem or feel impossible. But love, to me, is less about how we feel about the person than how we (basically) choose to treat that person. I think of love, moslty, as a commitment to a person's well-being. Love is the desire for this person (Or all persons) to thrive, be well ... and be happy. And so I do believe in the possibility of universal love.
River
Well-known member
We're in the unfortunate situation of having but one word to mean so damn many things (in the English language). It would probably be better were it not so, but it is what it is at the moment.
Let's re-define the question from "aren't some people impossible to love?" to "aren't some people impossible to wish to see well, happy, ... thriving?" ... "and to give to in this way, even to the point of personal sacrifice (however great or small)?"
Some people are nearly impossible to like -- e.g., serial rapists, thugish psychopaths..., Adolf Hitler.... But nobody is impossible to love.
Love begins -- I think -- with perceiving our own essence, which allows us to see the essence of all others. Perceiving our own and the other's essence inspires us to wish the very best for them -- and often to give of ourselves to encourage their flowering and flourishing.
Love is often very challenging -- usually because we have a difficult time perceiving our own essence (the first step).