TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Sexual Orientation Thread.

Go To

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#576: Jan 17th 2011 at 11:40:47 PM

I can see both forms of love.

Indeed, I'm fairly sure I can feel both romantic love and close-friendship love.

I'm just saying, that there is hardly any diffrence between the two. It is not all about tying yourself down; that's not the only difference. Just the biggest one that I see. And not even a prerequisite.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Meophist from Toronto, Canada Since: May, 2010
#577: Jan 17th 2011 at 11:51:12 PM

...Yeah, maybe the different types of love are different to each person, as I can't see romantic and platonic to be all that similar at all. Then again, I get romantically attracted to objects, so maybe I'm just weird.

In any case, I'm a bit too tired to go on about this now. Maybe tomorrow.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
Jace Atypical masculinity. from the Great White North Since: Oct, 2010
Atypical masculinity.
#578: Jan 18th 2011 at 7:01:39 AM

I don't see why romantic and platonic love can't overlap. People I'm in serious relationships with are my close friends. I do view my romantic partner as vastly different from my close friends, though. There are different feelings involved. I don't have the urge to be physically affectionate with platonic friends, for a start.

On polyamory, I honestly don't see how anyone can object to it on a moral basis if all parties consent and are happy with the situation.

Biophilic bookworm by day, gentleman adventurer by night.
Alkthash Was? Since: Jan, 2001
Was?
#579: Jan 18th 2011 at 1:29:34 PM

If anything I'm skeptical of romantic polyamorous relationships working just because of human batardry. How often do relationships between two people work out? A lot less often than the rate at which they fail. Add more people to the mix and the chances of somebody being an idiot or fucking things up dramatically increases.

edited 18th Jan '11 1:54:18 PM by Alkthash

inane242 Anwalt der Verdammten from A B-Movie Bildungsroman Since: Nov, 2010
Anwalt der Verdammten
#580: Jan 18th 2011 at 1:53:12 PM

I couldn't realy see myself in a relationship with more than one person, not because of any moral objections, but because I'm an old-fashioned kinda guy.

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.
KuroFox Forum lurking fox from under a rock Since: Jun, 2010
Forum lurking fox
#581: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:22:34 PM

Wiatwhaholdonasec... You're a dude? Why was I not informed???

edited 18th Jan '11 2:22:49 PM by KuroFox

Sonic hates SOPA
Chagen46 Dude Looks Like a Lady from I don't really know Since: Jan, 2010
#582: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:33:59 PM

On polyamory, I honestly don't see how anyone can object to it on a moral basis if all parties consent and are happy with the situation.

My personal definition of love is such that polyamoury is impossible under it.

As for the consent thing, I really cannot imagine my romantic partner loving more than just me. I'd quickly get jealous, and then favoritism would show up....I really don't get the "everybody can be happy and not jealous" part of it.

And, like Inane, I'm just an old-fashioned guy.

"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith
Meophist from Toronto, Canada Since: May, 2010
#583: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:48:10 PM

So, thinking about it more since last night, here's how I see the types of love:

Platonic love is basically a type of trust. Somebody you love platonically is basically somebody you trust a whole lot.

Romantic love is an emotional investment. You give up a part of oneself and give it to someone else. In this sense, they affect you emotionally.

Generally speaking, putting an emotional investment in somebody you don't trust is probably a bad idea, so it's likely better to be (romantically) in love with somebody you already love platonically. I think.

Investing yourself emotionally in multiple people is possible, but rather risky, particularly if you don't trust them a whole lot. The more people you get involved in, the greater the risk. There may be worthwhile rewards, however, but I don't have any experience in the matter.

I doubt my ability to keep multiple human partners myself as a single partner already has a significant energy requirement, and I don't think I have enough for more than one. Even one might be troublesome for me.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
KuroFox Forum lurking fox from under a rock Since: Jun, 2010
Forum lurking fox
#584: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:57:17 PM

I'm kinda old fashioned too, I guess. But I wont bug into other peoples harem relations if all sides of them are perfectly happy with it.

I wouldn't be. Depending on where on the scale I would be on a threesome, I'd be incredibly jealous or feel incredibly guilty.

edited 18th Jan '11 2:57:29 PM by KuroFox

Sonic hates SOPA
Nornagest Since: Jan, 2001
#585: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:58:06 PM

Capacity for jealousy, and ability to process it, varies very widely between individuals. Don't make the mistake of assuming your own response to it is typical, and definitely don't assume it's universal.

I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.
Chagen46 Dude Looks Like a Lady from I don't really know Since: Jan, 2010
#586: Jan 18th 2011 at 3:02:15 PM

Very Well, Norn, but most people I've talked to clearly don't want to be in a polyamourous realtionship. I'm pretty sure Monoamoury is relatively "normal" for people.

"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith
inane242 Anwalt der Verdammten from A B-Movie Bildungsroman Since: Nov, 2010
Anwalt der Verdammten
#587: Jan 18th 2011 at 3:04:28 PM

Wiatwhaholdonasec... You're a dude? Why was I not informed???

...consider yourself informed.

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.
Nornagest Since: Jan, 2001
#588: Jan 18th 2011 at 3:14:41 PM

@Chagen — A random selection of anecdotes doesn't generalize reliably to typical preferences in the first place (particularly on culturally and emotionally charged topics like sexuality); typical preferences don't imply universal preferences; and stated preferences don't map particularly well to actual preferences. But all that aside, I trust you know the difference between what's typical and what's a moral obligation?

Now, I'm not trying to criticize your personal inclinations here. There hasn't been much reliable research on the subject, but the received wisdom is that people's emotional compatibility with poly relationships is highly varied and is fixed before adulthood, which I think is accurate in its broad strokes. There's no shame in preferring mono relationships; most of the world probably does. But none of that elevates your inclinations to the status of an obligation or entitles you to generalize them over humanity without qualification, especially when you've already admitted that they're pretty much unsupported.

edited 18th Jan '11 3:29:07 PM by Nornagest

I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.
KuroFox Forum lurking fox from under a rock Since: Jun, 2010
Forum lurking fox
#589: Jan 18th 2011 at 4:02:36 PM

... consider yourself informed
I shall.

Sonic hates SOPA
BrainSewage from that one place Since: Jan, 2001
#590: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:37:51 PM

Technically heterosexual, but closer to asexual.

How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my soliloquy?
Meophist from Toronto, Canada Since: May, 2010
#591: Jan 18th 2011 at 10:22:50 PM

So, uh, I think my orientation changed again. I don't know what it is at the moment.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
DarkDecapodian The Prodigal Returns from the fold Since: Apr, 2009
The Prodigal Returns
#592: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:35:16 AM

Heterosexual, with a small chance of If It's You, It's Okay. However, my past and current inhibitions conspire to effectively prevent me acting on my desires.

Aww, did I hurt your widdle fee-fees?
Dynamod -Nudge- from Eagle Land Since: Jan, 2011
-Nudge-
#593: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:52:07 AM

im straight. just FYI.

if anyone is offended by that, its not because im squicked by boy's love. (i have a feeling most people online are bi...) its simply my preference.

Add me on skype! Dynamod1990
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#594: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:58:11 AM

[up] Sorry. We're kicking you out. Please walk down to the nearest office and hand in your Internet.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#595: Jan 19th 2011 at 5:06:16 AM

^^I'm fuckin offended dude; I'm calling the ACLU.

Kinkajou I'm Only Sleeping Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Hiding
I'm Only Sleeping
#596: Jan 19th 2011 at 5:26:05 AM

Still boring.

INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.
Dynamod -Nudge- from Eagle Land Since: Jan, 2011
-Nudge-
#597: Jan 19th 2011 at 5:37:09 AM

its important to clear up such things before something akward happens.

Add me on skype! Dynamod1990
Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#598: Jan 19th 2011 at 6:06:57 AM

^True that; you might have some dude hit on you in Starbucks.

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#599: Jan 19th 2011 at 6:17:04 AM

Starbucks is terrible for that.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#600: Jan 19th 2011 at 6:19:16 AM

Maybe you should go tell them that.


Total posts: 1,678
Top