Talk:Platonic love

• Platonic Love (2005)
  • Entry: Platonic Intercourse is True to Platonian Philosophy

Physiological coupling between two entities on a level of intimacy between pair-bonded individuals has been historically referenced as an opposing engagement to the philosophy manipulated by observers of Platononian perspective in reference to Plato's comments on sexual desire. Sexual desire can then be defined, in this context, as a lust for the experience of having specific regions of the human anatomy stimulated solely for the purpose of chemically hormonal increases and dopaminergic upregulation. Without taking into account the contextual associations and dependency-bondings that occur in relation to the sensations integrated with these reactions, the subject being bonded with is seemingly irrelevant. However, with this said, sexual desire and physiological coupling are entirely separate events. Sexual desire has intentions of being relieved of dependency on chemical addiction; Physiological coupling is a bonding being confirmed between paired individuals. In physiological coupling, the subjects involved are just as important as the chemical exchanges occurring between them.

The term was first aroused by Plato when commenting on the dangers of chemical dependency to sexual experience. Predecessors of Platonian Philosophy then termed non-sexual exchanged between individuals as "Platonic". However, since Plato was referencing the desire and not the exchange, it is more accurate to say that what "Platonic" precisely means is: The act of not depending on chemical addiction occuring during sexual experiences.

To be even more accurate, in reference to the intention of the statement: The act of not allowing chemical dependencies during sexual experiences interfere with productivity and critical thinking ("higher loves").

Using the intended definition of "platonic", displayed above, makes it possible to apply the term "platonic" to an act of physical bonding that is seemingly sexual. Since dopamine uptake has been researched as directly proportional to reinforcement learning, the chemical reactions that are involved with physiological coupling can also be used as way to control when reinforcement is distributed. The act of integrating the chemical reinforcement associated with physiological coupling for the purposes of learning, unification, and communication combines both the physiological aspect of mutual embodiment with the mental processing during productive critical thinking. Therefore, the term "platonic intercourse" can be accurately precise and a true-to-platonian-philosophy (TPP) statement. Yama Thi Khuu 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Yama Thi Khuu

Hmm... I'm thinking that we're ignoring an aspect here. After all, for a few centuries it was thought that spouses should have a strong Platonic relationship. Certainly they HAD sex. As I recall, the point of Platonic love was that it wasn't about sex, unlike Erotic love. Note how Erotic urges were supposed to be pushed into chaste "Courtly" love.Dunkelza

Not just between a man and a woman, but EB1911 might not have wanted to say so? -- The Anome

Eh? Dates back to Sir William Davenant's Platonic Lovers (1636)? Translated versions of Don Quixote (with the first book pulished in 1604 and the second part in 1614) use platonic lover(no clue if the Spanish version uses it) Specifically chapter 25(XXV) paragraph 41, where Quixote says,"...for my love and hers have been always platonic..." I used the gutenburg text. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/9/9/996/996.txt -Anonymous writer

I removed yonder wandering sentence. It does nothing for the article. Who are some and who are others? --VKokielov 06:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence

"A simple example of platonic relationships is a deep, non-sexual (i.e. overtly romantic) friendship, not subject to gender pairings and not excluding close relatives."

This sentence doesn't many any sense. Is the parenthesis saying that a non-sexual friendship is overtly romantic, or that a non-sexual friendship is not overtly romantic? Either way it's false, since romance can be non-sexual (as in courtly love) and sex can be non-romantic (as in a casual hook-up). And what does "subject to gender pairings" mean? Is the writer trying to say that platonic love can happen between any combination of genders, or that it need not be between an opposite-sex pair (as if romantic love were limited to opposite-sex pairs)? Either way the writer is trying to include multiple possible gender pairs in a sentence that purports to describe one "simple example." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.198.25 (talk) 12:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes section mentions only negative quotes. How can that be? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 18:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove some of them until someone get's some positive quotes. Johhny-turbo 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe. Still unfixed more than a year later...

I've taken the liberty of removing these quotes:

1. "Platonic Love is like getting laid. Without getting laid."
2. "Platonic love is like finding an oasis in a desert. But then that oasis won't give you any."

They do not contribute to the article. Jellocube27 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

The paradox section is all unsourced interpretation, and therefore POV. It should say who sees this as a paradox. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:41, 23 December 2005 (U

I think that with the recent additions we should have enough sources showing the conflict between the two contrasting readings of the term. Haiduc 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but there are still a few problems, imo. The last paragraph ("In order to clarify. . .") basically says that "some" believe something, which is a so-called "weasel word" and is unsourced. I'd leave out the last paragraph entirely. As for the second-to-last paragraph ("Thus the term. . ."), it also has a few problems. I'll try re-wording it, and I'll remove the last paragraph. See if you think that helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your changes make sense, but I think we need to find a way to re-integrate the "Platonical love" argument. This is what the article in Practical Philosophy has to say about it: In the popular mind Platonism is associated with the concept of Platonic love, which is understood today as a non-sexual relationship between heterosexual friends. As the concept of Platonic love is far from doing justice to Plato’s complex theory of love and sex, French scholars found it helpful to distinguish between amour platonique (the concept of non-sexual love) and amour platonicien (love according to Plato) (Gould, 1963, p. 1). See what you think of the present version. Haiduc 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks great. Thanks for your work on this article! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke, surely!

"Platonic love in its modern popular sense is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not penetrate" Oh, come on! How can a reputable encyclopedia allow such flagrant innuendo in the educational intercorse that occupies its pages?

FAITH & RESPECT

You clearly go against the principles of Wikipedia to mock someone's opinion, let alone point out their flaws...criticism should not be tolerated, but I admire your knack for tracking down obscenities and innuendos. Let's stay with the topic, shall we? This "reputable" encyclopedia exists because of us. (To not be biased, I posted a section below on Platonic Love.)

--Sir Tyler Cole 10:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Platonic Love in Japan

In Japan, it's known as "Puratoniku Ai" or "Platonic Ai." It's an extremely popular thing in manga & anime, esp. in shoujo stuff where men are depicted soft, emotional, & dramatic (& women are too, to an even grosser extreme). In manga, doujinshi, anime, & novel, platonic love is used hevily to describe a near-insectuous relationship between close relatives, such as siblings. In yaoi (wich is targeted at women) it's same-sex 90% of the time, aka boarderline homosexual/incestual love. They also use it to describe the intence but position-respected relationship between a person & their bodyguard.

A good example of this relationship is in the anime Princess Princess. Its about boys that dress as girls to be mascots for their all boys school. By the end it's a bit more than just a breif thought of love between two of the "Princesses". Cute, but not overly gay. Well, yeah REALLY gay, but in an adorable way. You can watch it on Veoh.com. Reccomended!151.202.6.65 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Masuricurl

"especialy when might be otherwise"

??? --VKokielov 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Constructive" Love

People have built walls of dismay on Plato's discoveries...this sickens me. It is possible for two humans to co-exist without copulating. They cannot have a family this way, but I believe Platonic Love is unbiased. Yes, a person can relinquish their desires without being physical; instead focusing on the true nature of another's feelings...not their feel.

However, I also believe that Platonic Love is not a ray of light. It is not seamless, or probable to remain in such a state forever. We as creatures, have evolved to adapt to whatever comes our way. The same can apply to our emotions. Humans are born needing another, but the time when another "soul" becomes necessary, instead of simply a necessity, a sexual convenience, seperates the lovers from the scoundrels. Platonic Love is 100% faith in your partner, needing no more connection than already exists in the present. Two people whose expectations will not shift beyond what drew them to each other.

Unless it was intercourse that drew them together. That is one exception. Another, is for the relationship to evolve...either into something more or less. Regardless, Platonic Love is more idealistic than practical. It is as rare as Plato's oldest surviving documents. A more realistic approach would be considered "Constructive" Love, one that grows as you and your partner do.

--Sir Tyler Cole 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence reaction

-Is the parenthesis saying that a non-sexual friendship is overtly romantic, or that a non-sexual friendship is not overtly romantic? This use of i.e. is akward, but it essentially means romantic yet non-sexual, not implying anything about the each type of relationship. -[W]hat does "subject to gender pairings" mean? It means that you forgot to include 'not,' which removes limits on any sexual preference, meaning it could be between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. It does not imply anything about romantic or deep relationships in the sense that the others are or are not dependent upon a member's sex, but merely qualifies something that may or may not be present in the description of the other types of relationships -Either way the writer is trying to include multiple possible gender pairs in a sentence that purports to describe one "simple example." It is, admittedly, not 'simple' per se, but it is a generic description of the idea, a formula for the idea if you will, which states that it is a deep romantic, yet non-sexual, relationship between two people.