Talk:Intimate relationship/Archive 1

Chinese racism I find the "Chinese don't value passionate love" thing to be deeply racist -- because if you have even a small understanding of Chinese literature you'd find great importance attached to "passionate love" in Chinese culture. More generally, I dispute the coherency of the claim in its current form that any culture ("western", "Chinese", "sub-Saharan") somehow privileges passionate or compassionate love over the other kind. I propose the offending passages be struck. 68.74.116.145 07:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Chicago. Racist? Well, perhaps. I think that is arguable. But it is entirely unsupported and has been awaiting a citation for 6 months, which is about 5 months too long. I'll delete it. NCdave 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC) This article looks like a stub. This article was brought up on Talk:Boyfriend as an article to move the non-dictionary parts of boyfriend/girlfriend on to. Any comments about this?? 66.245.91.223 21:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) I brought it up because I just created it as a place for information about intimate relationships, an area thats recently gotten some attention in social psychology. It shouldn't be too hard to make encyclopedic; an introductory social psych textbook that I have has several pages on the subject. --Johnkarp 22:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) And what the hell is a lovemap? Where do I purchase one of those? The author should stick with the science, and skip on the poetry. Intimacy and sex One can have an intimate relationship with purely platonic friends of either sex. It is not "usually characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment". Intimacy is knowing some-one very well indeed, being their confidante or whatever. Someone has now linked Mistress to this page, which is even more misguided. Giano | talk 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) You are certainly correct, Giano. Sexual intimacy is just one type of intimate relationship. Close friends, accountability partners, family members, etc., all have intimate relationships. I'll correct the article. NCdave 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Conflict Style Inventory What Conflict Style Inventory has to do with Intimate relationship? --202.63.227.38 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Wouldn't one be able to have an intimate relationship with a husband or wife perhaps? ? Wouldn't one be able to have an intimate relationship with a husband or wife perhaps? Merge with Intimacy When I get around to doing more work on Intimacy I propose to merge this Intimate relationship stub into Intimacy or vice versa. I think one of them has to be redundant. I can see more mileage using the intimacy article because Intrapersonal communication as a basis of intimacy seems to fit marginally better there than here. Interpersonal relationship is the other sensible place for the material in this article to appear as a sub heading. Any comments?--Ziji 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Perhaps interpersonal communication would be a better basis for intimacy between people. --Ssbohio 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Paramour gone? Paramour redirects here but there is no mention of it in the article. One of my pet hates in Wikipedia. :-) Brian Fenton (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I agree most vehemently! I was also directed here from a link for PARAMOUR only to be left wanting... I really object to people simply removing subjectmatter without due consideration for established links. Surely PARAMOUR is a very valid subject for THIS article in particular! PLEASE PUT IT BACK!!! Thank you kindly Outofthewoods (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Why teenagers? Why is there a picture of teenagers? They're hormone-driven idiots. Show old people. They actually care beyond 'Hi, I love you if you have sex with me'. ...Most of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.117.247 (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see your logic. Surely you are more open-minded than to believe that almost all teenagers are "hormone-driven idiots" with little capacity for true companionship. Furthermore, if you actually bothered to look at the picture closely, you'll notice that the figures in the picture are not teenagers at all--the man is balding, and the woman could easily be in her late twenties to mid thirties. Young...? Perhaps. But teenagers? No. So it's a moot point. citations judging by citations, this article seems to be a summary of one or two books. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) nkhdjsdbbnbjdbsnmbjdsjndjc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.130.11 (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC) article problem Is it just me or is this article poorly written, narrowly sourced, and overly presumptuous? Jonalexdeval (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Links removed I have added a link to a not-for-profit UK based charity (thecoupleconnection.net)to this page. We provide information, advice and support for those in relationships. In particular dealing with issues like parenting , affairs, jealousy, sex, or having a child with disabilities. This site is completely free and is a service available to all 24/7 and provides detailed information beyond the remit of wikipedia especially because we are an evidence based research organisation (One Plus One) and all the information on the site is based on research evidence. Our forum is also moderated by trained relationship counsellors providing invaluable support to users. Therefore we would very much like to add a link the site on this page. Despite the efficacy of the site the link has been removed several times - could editors please consider the efficacy of this site before removing the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.15.138 (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Whatever your intentions, those links IMHO fall foul of WP:ELNO as WP:LINKSPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Merge content from Intimacy into this article This article Intimate relationship has improved significantly since 2007. Intimacy now looks like a subset of this one with some of the same content. Interpersonal relationship needs work and is not a part of this one, unless as Ssbohio suggests, it stands as the top most article and the intimate ones a subset of that. So I am proposing a merge of Intimacy into this one. What do you think?Ziji (talk email) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) For reason of Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.Ziji (talk email) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC) This is what the merged articles would look like: User:Ziji/SandboxZiji (talk email) 22:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) About couple used in this article I am not a native speaker of English. I am confused in the couple used in this article. People who are in an intimate relationship with one another are often called a couple. especially if the members of that couple have ascribed some degree of permanency to their relationship. Does couple used here mean lovers or two peoples in marriage? -Wolfch (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Symbiosis? Is the way the word Symbiosis is used in this article accurate? 71.41.61.95 (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "Light Featured"? I am not familiar with the study in contained herein where children were asked about their preferences regarding intimates. However, it strikes me that there is either a typo and it should state "LIKE featured" instead of "Light featured" or should the present statement indeed be correct, then some background on the study or further explanation would be required for this tenet to make sense and why the sociographic conditions would make children within this study prefer 'Lightness'. Could someone who actually knows this empirical work please make the necessary changes to help clarify this peculiar statement. Thanks Outofthewoods (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Strange, but true. From the abstract of the source: "(4) Ss preferred friends having physical characteristics like light colored eyes and hair" link-to-abstract - hope this helps. Mediation4u (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Caption1 Caption2 Picking up unhealthy habits from your partner Replacing the paragraph in Main Space article, as no objections in 4 days. Pasting over the Draft paragraph below. Mediation4u (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC) editing is fun Bad habits, redraft suggestion (wikification), please update: A study suggests that married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each others' unhealthy habits. The study reports three distinct findings into how unhealthy habits are promoted in long-term, intimate relationships; through the direct bad influence of one partner, through health habit synchronicity and through the notion of personal responsibility. References Original text of new paragraph (added 25-Aug-2011) In a study (that was to be presented Tuesday, August 23, 2011, at the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Las Vegas, Nevada) by Corinne Reczek, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cincinnati (UC) in Cincinnati, Ohio, appearing in an online UC News article by Dawn Fuller on Thursday, August 18, 2011, "new research is emerging that suggests married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each other's unhealthy habits as well...Reczek...reports three distinct findings into how unhealthy habits were promoted through these long-term, intimate relationships: through the direct bad influence of one partner, through health habit synchronicity and through the notion of personal responsibility. For more information than can be provided here, consult the article by following the following hyperlink: (<<http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=14061>>). Hope this helps, Mediation4u (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC) editing is fun