SkyWorld Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Some of you may recognize this from one of your classes, and some of you may not. Wiki defines intimacy, passion, and commitment as: Intimacy – Which encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. Passion – Which encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction. Commitment – Which encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, plans made with that other. Personally, I would prefer companionate love. Something that some people may better recognize as a QPR (queerplatonic relationship), though a companionship is what I prefer to call it. So what do you people think of this? Might it be accurate or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saaaro Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I'm not a fan of this. It might make sense for aro aces, but there's no place for aro allosexuals or alloro aces as it lumps sexual and romantic attraction together as passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerformativeSurprise Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I definitely remember this from my psych classes. I like the concept of it, but I think @Saaaro makes a good point that it erroneously combines sexual and romantic attraction. As an aro ace, this model would work fairly well for me, but I don't think it would for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 i think it works as a stripped-down model of what love and attraction is, to help abstractly imagine the interplay of emotions regarding relationships. but I find it to be an outdated model considering the complexities our modern knowledge finds in love, attraction, admiration, and desire, and anything else along with them. perhaps some kind of geometric model could be drawn up with the newer theories and paradigms in mind, but the triangular model is not inclusive enough of current knowledge. I guess it could be considered a way to discribe a subset of the emotional intimacy of relationships? if so, though, it would need to have a shift in word choice, to be revamped and additionally noted as a specific look at love rather than an encompassing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulWolf Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 If they split the 'passion' bit to make romantic passion and sexual passion seperate, would it be perfect? Would have to come up with different terms for all the new combos. And I'm not sure "empty love" even qualifies as a type of love or even anything remotely relevant to it... that should be renamed. Other than that, it seems relatively decent, and I'd be very very happy with more companionate love in my life. I think I could even use that as a way to explain things to people IRL since it's relatively simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techno Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 wooooOOOOOOO this triangle has been grinding my gears for a few years now ever since I was first introduced to it in a very very uncomfortable "future planning" class I was forced to take as a high school freshman (incidentally it was this class that made me realize I was aro/ace but that's a story for another time and another thread). Short version: I hate this triangle. Now for the long version. Maybe the problem I had with it started when the teacher kept referring to consummate love as "complete love," and as a budding aro you can probably guess why that didn't sit well with me. Her implication was that the love I felt towards my friends and family wasn't "complete" because it didn't involve passion (sexual? romantic? I don't know maybe if this whole theory acknowledged that there was a difference we wouldn't have this problem, but considering I didn't even know I was aro/ace yet that didn't really cross my mind, and in the context of the class it was implied to be sexual). Mostly I think it just really over-simplifies the many, many different and complex types of love and relationships that exist out there. Maybe (assuming the sexual vs romantic attraction situation would be sorted out) as a general basis it makes sense, but the cultural stigma behind it and the implication that only a committed sexual and romantic relationship is "complete" has always bothered me. I might just be being picky and basing my opinions off of that one terrible class, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyWorld Posted July 28, 2016 Author Share Posted July 28, 2016 Yeah, I agree. It is pretty, not sure what would be the right word I'm looking for, "disappointing"(?) that one or another form of love is considered "less than" or "more than" another, when love is already a very complex thing in itself and shouldn't necessarily be interpreted that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 On 27/07/2016 at 8:29 AM, Saaaro said: I'm not a fan of this. It might make sense for aro aces, but there's no place for aro allosexuals or alloro aces as it lumps sexual and romantic attraction together as passion. Or for that matter anyone who has a differing romantic and sexual orientation. Even those with the same romantic and sexual orientations may not experience both attractions to the same people. Sensual attraction is also distinct from sexual attraction. Similarly for aestetic attraction. On 27/07/2016 at 5:36 PM, SoulWolf said: If they split the 'passion' bit to make romantic passion and sexual passion seperate, would it be perfect? Would have to come up with different terms for all the new combos. Doing that would result in needing a tetrahedron rather than a triangle. If you added in that sensual attraction is also distinct you'd end up with a hypertetrahedron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rising Sun Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I don't think that the model works either. Because companionate love in the model is what happens after passion is gone in couples, but they still feel romantic attraction for each other. It's just... "domesticated" ? (I'm not finding a better word right now) Romance shouldn't be reduced to the usual limerence, there's much more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedNeko Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 It seems very artificial to me. I would rather treat each relationship I'm part of as the individual relationships they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiekirkland Posted August 19, 2016 Share Posted August 19, 2016 I feel like this would work explaining it to some people and not with others. It would depend on their interpretation of intimacy and passion because a lot of people assume that intimacy is romantic in nature and that platonic intimacy isn't a thing, whereas passion is just sexual. Some people even think that commitment is reserved for romantic relationships. I definitely think commitment, intimacy and even passion (in the case of sexual aros) can all be platonic in nature, and that love comes in all forms. I suppose I like the sound of it, but I question the intentions of the creator of whether they had made this with a romantic context in mind, if that makes sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.