Talk:Intimate relationship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I find it a bit unbelievable that the discussion of the history of affective relationships skips from Aristotle to the 19th c....that's a study worth summarizing for someone, somewhere. Not me, not now, although the work I'm doing on medieval dance iconography w/re/to handholding positions in group dances led me to do some work on it, but is there really no discussion possible between the two bookends as they appear here? (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The section on Different Terms and Types of Intimate Relationships needs a LOT of work. Bobgilmore43 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole explanation of the meaning of an "intimate relationship" is lacking and meaningless as presented. To present in some detail the work with children and youth and suggest the link with adult romance and intimacy seems to be totally misplaced in this type of a discussion. The author speaks a lot about the importance of empirical studies and has a foundation that is nothing but sand for the conclusions the article makes. This article should be flagged as significantly deficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Intimate relationships in ancient Greece[edit]

It's supposed that the so called "Platonic love" was not as most think today when hearing the word, an spiritual love with no participation of the physical parts or expressions of feelings, that as address very deep parts in our minds are so strong in effects that are close to limiting freedom, but "Platonic" probably referred to "Erastia", the homosexual bond between teacher and student that is cited in classical texts, for example some regret that in contrary to what happened in the old times, when Erastia was limited to one person to other, people started having multiple relationships, and students offered themselves to teachers in a too open and obscene way. Any kind of body contact is always close to sex, and as it triggers old parts of brain, from a phylogenetic point of view, it can be good to restrict it and limit it to the relationships where it can reach an stronger degree, and give more affection and pleasure: the couple relationships.--Jgrosay (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does paramour redirect here?[edit]

Two distinct things should not be Implied to be the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that it currently redirects here because the term refers to a type of intimate relationship -- a sexual one; lovers.[1][2] Alternatively, it would be fine to redirect it the Lover page, but that is a disambiguation page. So a better fit than that page would be the second definition it lists for "lover" -- a sexual partner. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, since the term especially refers to an illicit lover/adulterous relationship, one could argue that it might be better to redirect it to the Adultery article; that redirect wouldn't be considered neutral by some people, however, since the term does not only refer to adultery. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked up paramour on wikipedia to get a better understanding of the history behind adulterous relationships. While this article on Intimate relationship is nice, it is disingenuous to link paramour here, as there is no discussion of the topic here. This is not what I expect from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Citation needed or to be made clearer[edit]

I want to quote C.colombus's on "Genuine intimacy in human relationships requires dialogue, transparency, vulnerability and reciprocity," but I found his/her references insufficient. The closest citation used in "This was clarified by Dalton (1959) who discusses how anthropologists and ethnographic researchers access 'inside information' from within a particular cultural setting by establishing networks of intimates capable (and willing) to provide information unobtainable through formal channels" makes it unclear if the first definition is derived solely from that M. Dalton's book Men who Manage or from other sources. Please see Airelor (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead image[edit] (talk · contribs) removed an image that HeliumPearl added. As seen with this edit, HeliumPearl re-added the image and I removed it. As noted in my edit summary, I removed it because this article is not solely about sexual intimacy. So having that image in the lead makes it seem as though this article is mainly or primarily about sexual intimacy. The image also is not needed and clearly violates WP:GRATUITOUS. It is a foursome image that is not needed in the least to help readers understand what an intimate relationship is.

HeliumPearl has been making poor choices when it comes to lead material, as seen when he got into a dispute with Meters at the Love article and in a dispute with me and others at the Man article. HeliumPearl, I ask that you think your edits through more carefully and stop WP:Edit warring over matters such as these. Take the time to actually listen to the objections instead of having your say and reverting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!HeliumPearl (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)