Platonic Relationships

[naija_pikin]

...aka Unicorn in the room? Are PRs a myth or reality? Most men appear to believe the former, while women tend to go with the latter. This Mars vs. Venus thing is apparently very real.

One of the offered definitions is as follows:

"of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex"

Based on that, I'd say the Venusians (ie women) win this argument. If Segun wants to go skinny dipping into & do the breast stroke pursue a romantic relationship with Bosola, but she isn't trying to hear it and they instead fall back on a great, non-sexual relationship, doesn't that qualify as platonicism? Ain't no chex being had, nor wandering thoughts or hands being entertained. Right? Right? Pop the champagne, somebody!

But wait...source #2 says:

"[...]free from sensual desire, esp. in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex."

Dammit, Segun. Your perverse mind done went & F*'d up err'thang.


So, what say you? Is it the absence of desire or action that qualifies an opposite sex relationship as platonic? Does it even matter if the end result is the same?

[The Mayor]

Originally Posted by naija_pikin

...aka Unicorn in the room? Are PRs a myth or reality? Most men appear to believe the former, while women tend to go with the latter. This Mars vs. Venus thing is apparently very real.

One of the offered definitions is as follows:

"of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex"

Based on that, I'd say the Venusians (ie women) win this argument. If Segun wants to go skinny dipping into & do the breast stroke pursue a romantic relationship with Bosola, but she isn't trying to hear it and they instead fall back on a great, non-sexual relationship, doesn't that qualify as platonicism? Ain't no chex being had, nor wandering thoughts or hands being entertained. Right? Right? Pop the champagne, somebody!

But wait...source #2 says:

"[...]free from sensual desire, esp. in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex."

Dammit, Segun. Your perverse mind done went & F*'d up err'thang.


So, what say you? Is it the absence of desire or action that qualifies an opposite sex relationship as platonic? Does it even matter if the end result is the same?

Da fuck is this one on about sef... "If Segun wants to go skinny dipping into & do the breast stroke" who even says shit like that. What a nerd fucking canadians

[laco]

lol The mayor. Leave the poor girl alone

[laco]

According to Chris Rock, a girl having a male's platonic is like a dick in a bottle. Whenever she wants it, she will just break the bottle and stick the dick into her toto. On the other hand, a guy in platonic relationship is just laying in wait, until the girl breaks the bottle. I hope that helps u in your quest about "platonic"

[______]

I think most friendships are born out of some mutual physical attraction, how ever slight. Ill

Originally Posted by naija_pikin

...aka Unicorn in the room? Are PRs a myth or reality? Most men appear to believe the former, while women tend to go with the latter. This Mars vs. Venus thing is apparently very real.

One of the offered definitions is as follows:

"of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex"

Based on that, I'd say the Venusians (ie women) win this argument. If Segun wants to go skinny dipping into & do the breast stroke pursue a romantic relationship with Bosola, but she isn't trying to hear it and they instead fall back on a great, non-sexual relationship, doesn't that qualify as platonicism? Ain't no chex being had, nor wandering thoughts or hands being entertained. Right? Right? Pop the champagne, somebody!

But wait...source #2 says:

"[...]free from sensual desire, esp. in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex."

Dammit, Segun. Your perverse mind done went & F*'d up err'thang.


So, what say you? Is it the absence of desire or action that qualifies an opposite sex relationship as platonic? Does it even matter if the end result is the same?

[naija_pikin]

Originally Posted by laco

According to Chris Rock, a girl having a male's platonic is like a dick in a bottle. Whenever she wants it, she will just break the bottle and stick the dick into her toto. On the other hand, a guy in platonic relationship is just laying in wait, until the girl breaks the bottle. I hope that helps u in your quest about "platonic"

T'has nothing to do with me, I'm just bringing up issues for discussion's sake. This is about people's personal definition of what constitutes a platonic relationship. As far as I'm concerned, if we're not doing anything eyebrow-raising behind closed doors or walking any fine lines, we're platonic friends. I don't care if Y has wet dreams about me as long as he knows to stay in his lane.

Originally Posted by ______

I think most friendships are born out of some mutual physical attraction, how ever slight. Ill

I won't dispute that, but my questions have more to do with your definition of a platonic relationship. Were you about to start off another sentence/thought?

[adedeji]

Naija Pikin,

Ur first example seems too narrow, thats y its rebutted by the latter. Its possible for two people, of opposite sex, to meet in a situation where sexual desire was not the "draw" that brought them together. Perhaps both persons met when they were in elementary school, and always had each others back? blah blah blah...

Personally, and I do not believe I am alone on this, I think its too simplistic to state with absolute certainty that a man and a woman cannot have a relationship devoid of sex, sexual desires, or romantic feelings. In my opinion, of course.

Finally, both your definitions spoke in the present tense, meaning that in actual fact, the second definition does not necessarily negate the first definition. With the second speaking in present tense, even though the guy/girl initially had sexual desires for the other, the fact that the desires are no longer present means that the relationship is platonic.

[naija_pikin]

Originally Posted by adedeji

Naija Pikin,

Ur first example seems too narrow, thats y its rebutted by the latter. Its possible for two people, of opposite sex, to meet in a situation where sexual desire was not the "draw" that brought them together. Perhaps both persons met when they were in elementary school, and always had each others back? blah blah blah...

This is less about how they met and more about the dynamics of an established or budding (and for the sake of this discussion, adult) relationship. Furthermore, it was necessary that one definition contradict the other; that is the entire essence of the existing argument.


Personally, and I do not believe I am alone on this, I think its too simplistic to state with absolute certainty that a man and a woman cannot have a relationship devoid of sex, sexual desires, or romantic feelings. In my opinion, of course.

I think you may have missed the premise of this post. The point is that one group believes exactly what you just stated, which clearly means that you’re not alone. Coincidentally, most of the people who argue this are women. We spend a lot of time trying to sway men who are convinced that it’s bollocks. As far as they’re concerned, the likelihood of this happening is less than 5%. The possibilities go as follows:

(a) He tried, but she shut him down & relegated him to the dreaded friend zone
(b) He is merely biding his time
(c) She is in a relationship
(d) He doesn't think she'd be down, but if given half a green light, he wouldn’t waste any time

Etc.

Of course, this says something about the guy who’s promoting that view. A lot of the time, it’s based on the simple fact that some guys generally see no point in pursuing friendships with the opposite sex, and have noted that there are certain recurring patterns to the ones they do end up developing.



Finally, both your definitions spoke in the present tense, meaning that in actual fact, the second definition does not necessarily negate the first definition. With the second speaking in present tense, even though the guy/girl initially had sexual desires for the other, the fact that the desires are no longer present means that the relationship is platonic.


I agree. However, most of those who don’t tend to argue that the desire merely becomes latent and doesn’t actually disappear altogether.

I already stated my views on the matter in a previous post, but I will add that I agree that things can get somewhat grey when considering the possibility of romantic and/or sexual feelings developing at some point in the course of a male-female friendship. I'd argue that there's over a 70% chance of one person succumbing to them, but as I said, the relationship to me remains platonic until a line is crossed.

[daddidollars]

Usually yans dust, but I can digg this

[naija_pikin]

Pretty much sums up the argument and the gender divide.

[FestacMan]

I think as long as two people of the opposite sex are straight and attractive, if they spend enough time together there will be some kind of attraction that will develop. However, there has to be something about that relationship, a bond that is worth saving over sex. It is that bond I believe that keeps both parties satisfied in keeping their relationship platonic. So no it is not a myth. One of my best friends ever is female, am I attracted to her? hell yea. She is very hot. But I in about 20years we've never done anything sexual. We've even slept in the same hotel room, on occasion we have fallen asleep in the same bed but absolutely nothing would transpire cos I respect the relationship enuff not to try to spoil it and so does she. She even jokes from time to time that when I get married, she will suit up and be my best man. Yup platonic relationships are possible.

[naija_pikin]

Originally Posted by FestacMan

I think as long as two people of the opposite sex are straight and attractive, if they spend enough time together there will be some kind of attraction that will develop. However, there has to be something about that relationship, a bond that is worth saving over sex. It is that bond I believe that keeps both parties satisfied in keeping their relationship platonic. So no it is not a myth. One of my best friends ever is female, am I attracted to her? hell yea. She is very hot. But I in about 20years we've never done anything sexual. We've even slept in the same hotel room, on occasion we have fallen asleep in the same bed but absolutely nothing would transpire cos I respect the relationship enuff not to try to spoil it and so does she. She even jokes from time to time that when I get married, she will suit up and be my best man. Yup platonic relationships are possible.

It's not about whether or not things will inevitably happen, but rather about how you define "platonic". The issue is that some claim that that sexual/physical attraction negates the so-called platonicism of the relationship, despite the fact that no action has been taken on either side.

Your definition/thoughts and mine agree.

[Tega]

Originally Posted by daddidollars

Usually yans dust, but I can digg this

i disagree.

[Kami Kaze]

Originally Posted by Tega

i disagree.

[Boss]

I tend to be platonic to females I have a no attraction to.

Mostly emotionally.

Now I have had some friends who were really physically attractive women, but either I view them like sisters or something about their attitudes doesn't mesh up to my expectation.

I hardly stay platonic with a girl I really like. Either we get down, fight and break up and get back to semi-old terms or not back together at all.

I guess it's just like that Trey Songz song sometimes.

That's why in more recent years I've learned to value friendships and if it's not worth jumping the broom over, keep it at friendships, which is hard since you know there's some idiot who'd prolly get with her and shit and prolly treat her bad