What's the difference between friendship and platonic, romantic relationships?

[Raj]

Wiser words have never been spoken by my little Minty since...at least yesterday; I don't fckin' remember.

When I pass on, it's gonna be up to you to make the big decisions in the family name.

Why not me? I'm capable!

[Mod]

Why not me? I'm capable!

The only thing you're capable of is taking the force of my belt, repeatedly.

[watersniper]

A last question: Why do you guys want to be (assuming that you do) in relationships? @(you need an account to see links) @(you need an account to see links) @(you need an account to see links)

From what you said, @(you need an account to see links), logically, a crush should progress to a relationship. But how do you justify the necessity of a relationship? (As in, I'm not sure why it should become a relationship, other than it's normal and expected by society).

[Mod]

From what you said, @(you need an account to see links), logically, a crush should progress to a relationship. But how do you justify the necessity of a relationship? (As in, I'm not sure why it should become a relationship, other than it's normal and expected by society).

*A crush will only progress to a relationship if 2 things happen:

1. Your attraction to your crush doesn't fizzle out before it becomes a relationship; hence why people always say, "It was just a crush.".
2. The other person reciprocates these feelings, or at least accepts you to begin a relationship - but that's common sense, really.

---

That's a good question, I used to wonder the same thing. From my own pondering, it came to two schools of thought:

1. It's like you said, "normal and expected by society". From a biological standpoint, we're animals like frogs and cats - differ only by intelligence and higher levels of emotional processing. Nevermind the few species who are instinctively monogamous, our ultimate goals are to reproduce offspring to continue the human race, and by subconscious selfishness, to ensure the survival of our own genes by spreading them this way.

Thus we don't actually need relationships, but humanity has been trained for so long by religion and society that we are raised and taught to believe that we need them in order to have normal and prosperous lives, from birth. As civilization is today, it would be disadvantageous to not be in a relationship, and eventually family - you would be frowned upon, lose certain government benefits, and stuff of that sort as a few examples.

2. The second school of thought I came up with involves human ecology (human interaction/relationships) and again, biology. By nature, humans are a social species of animal - much like other primates. As I said above, we are highly intelligent and have much greater levels of emotional processing. This is real btw; I'm not making it up - we have larger and specialized brain structures that function for emotion itself (eg. amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex).

Thus it could be that we desire or need the companionship of another to remain emotionally stable and progress normally in our lifetimes. What is known by scientific research that other mammals raised in solitude (eg. lacking parents or other animals) will exhibit cognitive defects, and odd behaviour during maturity. While there have been no legitimate human studies to mimic this, we can safely say people lacking companionship or social engagement will develop anxiety, difficulty integrating into society, warped ways of thought, and sometimes more serious psychological issues.

.
.
.

The big question philosophy & science is always debating about without definitive answer as of yet, is "nature vs. nurture". Do we acquire behaviours and desires like "relationships" because of instinct, genetics, and ultimately - biology? Or do we have these behaviours and desires because of our environment, being shaped by societal norms themselves? It's a deep topic with evidence for and against on both sides that I'd rather not get into now (and you're probably not interested in anyways, too deviating from your original question here, ), so if you're wondering about it, it's really up to you to decide which it is, or a combination of both.

[osiyo]

A last question: Why do you guys want to be (assuming that you do) in relationships? @(you need an account to see links) @(you need an account to see links) @(you need an account to see links)

From what you said, @(you need an account to see links), logically, a crush should progress to a relationship. But how do you justify the necessity of a relationship? (As in, I'm not sure why it should become a relationship, other than it's normal and expected by society).

I prefer to be in a relationship because it allows a deeper connection with someone. You share everything with them and you can rely upon them. Being in love isn't too shabby either - it's an addictive emotion that makes both of you happier. There's lost of interesting psychology behind relationships, but it essentially comes down to sharing your responsibilities between two people and having a partner in crime.

You can never remember to turn that light off in the bathroom? BAM - he remembers it for you. He can never remember his parent's birthdays? BAM - you buy the gifts and cards for him. Always wanted to travel to X city, but never could get someone to go with you? BAM - instant traveling partner.

In a healthy relationship, you help each other be more than you are by yourself, and encourage each other to grow.

[VitaminX]

I prefer to be in a relationship because it allows a deeper connection with someone. You share everything with them and you can rely upon them. Being in love isn't too shabby either - it's an addictive emotion that makes both of you happier. There's lost of interesting psychology behind relationships, but it essentially comes down to sharing your responsibilities between two people and having a partner in crime.

You can never remember to turn that light off in the bathroom? BAM - he remembers it for you. He can never remember his parent's birthdays? BAM - you buy the gifts and cards for him. Always wanted to travel to X city, but never could get someone to go with you? BAM - instant traveling partner.

In a healthy relationship, you help each other be more than you are by yourself, and encourage each other to grow.

This. Currently in a 5 year relationship and I love it.
We're like totally opposites, yet we fit together so well.

Always someone to talk to, in good days, and bad. Can't imagine myself being without her tbh.

[futoss]

I definetely think there is a difference but I don't know exactly how to explain it. I guess it depends on the emotional connections you feel for a friend and one you feel for a lover. A friend will not make your heart beat faster every time you see them or give you the urges to be intimate with them in any way. A friendship is more of a muted feeling of a romantic relationship I guess.

[Crow]

It's funny actually, I'm after a romantic, platonic relationship right now. But I'm having difficulty finding people because they don't seem to understand what I'm trying to define.

I want someone to be my best friend-- someone who I can act myself around and not feel judged, someone I can have fun with and do stupid shit with, but also trust and rely on, and he/she can expect the same from me. However, this person I also want to be able to hold hands with, cuddle, dance with, and do other "romantic" things with (like we could go out to dinner together but take turns paying; and we can share food/drinks if we want). There should be no expectations or promises of devotion. BUT I do not want any type of sexual relations, despite maybe some sweet/short kisses (not making out). And yet I still want there to be the possibility to fall in love. But no pressure there. If it happens, it should happen naturally.

This sounds great in theory, but when I try to tell people this and they appear to understand, they still seem to touch me in sexual ways and expect make-out sessions and some kind of sex and it really pisses me off.

/done venting