The term romantic friendship refers to a very close but non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that common in modern Western societies, for example holding hands, cuddling, sharing a bed, as well as open expressions of love for one another.

Same-sex romantic friendship was considered common and unremarkable in the West, and was distinguished from then-taboo homosexual relationships, up until the second half of the 19th century,1 but after that time its open expression generally became much rarer as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.2

Several small groups of advocates and researchers have advocated for the renewed use of the term, or the related term Boston marriage, today. Several lesbian, gay, and feminist authors (such as Lillian Faderman, Stephanie Coontz, Jaclyn Geller and Esther Rothblum3) have done academic research on the topic; these authors typically favor the minority view that sexual orientation is a modern, culturally constructed concept.4

Historian Stephanie Coontz writes of pre-modern customs in the United States:

" Perfectly respectable Victorian women wrote to each other in terms such as these: 'I hope for you so much, and feel so eager for you. that the expectation once more to see your face again, makes me feel hot and feverish.' They recorded the 'furnace blast' of their 'passionate attachments' to each other... They carved their initials into trees, set flowers in front of one another's portraits, danced together, kissed, held hands, and endured intense jealousies over rivals or small slights... Today if a woman died and her son or husband found such diaries or letters in her effects, he would probably destroy them in rage or humiliation. In the nineteenth century, these sentiments were so respectable that surviving relatives often published them in elegies....

In the 1920s people's interpretation of physical contact became extraordinarily 'privatized and sexualized,' so that all types of touching, kissing, and holding were seen as sexual foreplay rather than accepted as ordinary means of communication that carried different meanings in different contexts... It is not that homosexuality was acceptable before; but now a wider range of behavior opened a person up to being branded as a homosexual... The romantic friendships that had existed among many unmarried men in the nineteenth century were no longer compatible with heterosexual identity.5

Contents

1 Examples of historical romantic friendship

o 1.1 Shakespeare and Fair Lord

o 1.2 Montaigne and Estienne de La Boétie

o 1.3 Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed

o 1.4 Emily Dickinson and Sue Gilbert

2 Biblical and religious evidence for romantic friendship

3 Notes

4 See also

Examples of historical romantic friendship

Close Relationships

Affinity . Attachment . Bonding . Cohabitation . Compersion . Concubinage . Courtship . Divorce . Dower/-ry . Friendship . Family . Husband . Infatuation . Intimacy . Jealousy . Limerence . Love . Marriage . Monogamy . Nonmonogamy . Office romance . Passion . Partner . Pederasty . Platonic love . Psychology of Monogamy . Relationship abuse . Sexuality . Separation . Wedding . Widowhood . Wife

v . d . e

The study of historical romantic friendship is difficult because the primary source material consists of writing about love relationships, which typically took the form of love letters, poems, or philosophical essays rather than objective studies.6 Most of these do not explicitly state the sexual or nonsexual nature of relationships; the fact that homosexuality was taboo in Western European cultures at the time means that some sexual relationships may be hidden, but at the same time the rareness of romantic friendship in modern times means that references to nonsexual relationships may be misinterpreted, as alleged by Faderman, Coontz, Anthony Rotundo, Douglas Bush, and others.

Shakespeare and Fair Lord

Main article: Sexuality of William Shakespeare

The content of Shakespeare's works has raised the question of whether he may have been bisexual. The question of whether an Elizabethan was "gay" in a modern sense is anachronistic, as the concepts of homosexuality and bisexuality as identities did not emerge until the 19th century; while sodomy was a crime in the period, there was no word for an exclusively homosexual identity (see History of homosexuality). Elizabethans also frequently wrote about friendship in more intense language than is common today.

Although twenty-six of the Shakespeare's sonnets are love poems addressed to a married woman (the "Dark Lady"), one hundred and twenty-six are addressed to a young man (known as the "Fair Lord"). The amorous tone of the latter group, which focus on the young man's beauty, has been interpreted as evidence for Shakespeare's bisexuality, although others interpret them as referring to intense friendship or fatherly affection, not sexual love.

Among those of the latter interpretation, in the preface to his 1961 Pelican edition, Douglas Bush writes:

"Since modern readers are unused to such ardor in masculine friendship and are likely to leap at the notion of homosexuality. we may remember that such an ideal, often exalted above the love of women, could exist in real life, from Montaigne to Sir Thomas Browne, and was conspicuous in Renaissance literature". 7

Bush cites Montaigne, who distinguished male friendships from "that other, licentious Greek love" 8, as evidence of a platonic interpretation.

Montaigne and Estienne de La Boétie

The French philosopher Montaigne described the concept of romantic friendship (without using this English term) in his essay "On Friendship." In addition to distinguishing this type of love from homosexuality ("this other Greek licence" sp.), another way in which Montaigne differed from the modern view9 was that he felt that friendship and platonic emotion were a primarily masculine capacity (apparently unaware of the custom of female romantic friendship which also existed):

" Seeing (to speake truly) that the ordinary sufficiency of women cannot answer this conference and communication, the nurse of this sacred bond: nor seeme their mindes strong enough to endure the pulling of a knot so hard, so fast, and durable. (sp.)10 "

Lesbian-feminist historian Lillian Faderman cites Montaigne, using "On Friendship" as evidence that romantic friendship was distinct from homosexuality, since the former could be extolled by famous and respected writers, who simultaneously disparaged homosexuality. (The quotation also further's Faderman's beliefs that gender and sexuality are socially constructed, since they indicate that each sex has been thought of as "better" at intense friendship in one or another period of history.)

Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed

Main article: Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

Some historians have used the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed as another example of a relationship that modern people see as ambiguous or possibly gay, but which was most likely to have been a romantic friendship. Lincoln and Speed lived together and shared a bed in their youth and maintaned a lifelong friendship. David Herbert Donald pointed out that men at that time often shared beds for financial reasons; men were used to same-sex nonsexual intimacy since most parents could not afford separate beds or rooms for male siblings. Anthony Rotundo notes11 that the custom of romantic friendship for men in America in the early 1800's was different from that of Renaissance France, and it was expected that men will distance themselves emotionally and physically somewhat after marriage; he claims that letters between Lincoln and Speed show this distancing after Lincoln married Mary Todd. Such distancing, which is still practiced today,12 could indicate that Lincoln was following the social customs of his day, rather than rebelling against the taboo on homosexuality.

Emily Dickinson and Sue Gilbert

Faderman uses the letters between poet Emily Dickinson and her friend and later sister-in-law Sue Gilbert to show how love between women, understood as nonsexual romantic friendship, was accepted as normal at the time, and only later thought of as deviant:

" Emily's love letters to Sue were written in the early 1850's. Bianchi's Martha Dickinson Bianchi, her niece editions appeared in 1924 and 1932. Because Bianchi was Sue's daughter, she wished to show that Emily relied on Sue, that Sue influenced her poetry, and that the two were the best of friends. But working during the height of the popularization of Sigmund Freud, she must have known to what extent intense friendship had fallen into disrepute. She therefore edited out all indications of Emily's truly powerful involvement with her mother. "

Following is an excerpt of the examples of censorship that Faderman cites: The 1924/1932 editions of Dickinson's letters include a letter dated June 11, 1852, from Emily, saying:

" ...Susie, forgive me darling, for every word I say, my heart is full of you, yet when I seek to say something to you not for the world, words fail me. I try to bring you nearer... "

The original letter reads:

" ...Susie, forgive me darling, for every word I say, my heart is full of you, none other than you in my thoughts, yet when I seek to say something to you not for the world, words fail me. If you were here-- and Oh that you were, my Susie, we need not talk at all, our eyes would whisper for us, and your hand fast in mine we would not ask for language... I try to bring you nearer... "

Those who favor the homosexual interpretation might argue that Dickinson would feel no need to censor any sort of relationship in a private love letter, even if the relationship was taboo at the time. Faderman's position is that the originals were not destroyed because they were not taboo at the time; in reference to other such letters from the Victorian era, Coontz writes that "these sentiments were so respectable that surviving relatives often published them in elegies."13

Biblical and religious evidence for romantic friendship

Proponents of the romantic friendship hypothesis also make reference to the Bible. Historians like Faderman and Robert Brain14 believe that the descriptions of relationships such as David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi in this religious text establish that the customs of romantic friendship existed and were thought of as virtuous in the ancient Near East, despite the simultaneous taboo on homosexuality.

The relationship between King David and Jonathan is often cited as an example of male romantic friendship; for example, Faderman uses 2 Samuel 1:26 on the title page of her book: "Your love was wonderful to me, passing the love of women."15

Ruth and Naomi are the female Biblical pair most often cited as a possible romantic friendship, as in the following verse commonly used in heterosexual wedding ceremonies:

" Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there will I be buried.16 "

Faderman writes that women in Renaissance and Victorian times made reference to both Ruth and Naomi and "Davidean" friendship as the basis for their romantic friendships.17

Jesus himself is sometimes cited as an example; for example, queer author Elizabeth Stuart states that "The only model of relating that we can definitely see operating in the life of Jesus, as presented to us by the Gospels, is friendship."18 Examples of pre-modern standards of physical contact in the Gospels include John 13:23: "One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus."

While some authors, notably John Boswell, have claimed that ecclesiatical practice in earlier ages blessed "same sex unions", the accurate interpretation of these relationships rests on a proper understanding of the mores and values of the participants, including both the parties receiving the rite in question and the clergy officiating at it. Boswell himself concedes that past relationships are ambiguous; when describing Greek and Roman attitudes, Boswell states that "A consensual physical aspect would have been utterly irrelevant to placing the relationship in a meaningful taxonomy."19 Boswell's own interpretation has been thoroughly critiqued, notably by Brent D. Shaw, himself a homosexual, in a review written for the New Republic 20 :

" Given the centrality of Boswell's "new" evidence, therefore, it is best to begin by describing his documents and their import. These documents are liturgies for an ecclesiastical ritual called adelphopoiesis or, in simple English, the "creation of a brother." Whatever these texts are, they are not texts for marriage ceremonies. Boswell's translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as "The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men" or "Office for Same-Sex Union" is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book. Thus the Greek words that Boswell translates as "be united together" in the third section of the document quoted above are, in fact, rather ordinary words that mean "become brothers" (adelphoi genesthai); and when they are translated in this more straightforward manner, they impart a quite different sense to the reader.

Such agreements and rituals are "same-sex" in the sense that it is two men who are involved; and they are "unions" in the sense that the two men involved are co-joined as "brothers." But that is it. There is no indication in the texts themselves that these are marriages in any sense that the word would mean to readers now, nor in any sense that the word would have meant to persons then: the formation of a common household, the sharing of everything in a permanent co-residential unit, the formation of a family unit wherein the two partners were committed, ideally, to each other, with the intent to raise children, and so on.

Although it is difficult to state precisely what these ritualized relationships were, most historians who have studied them are fairly certain that they deal with a species of "ritualized kinship" that is covered by the term "brotherhood." (This type of "brotherhood" is similar to the ritualized agreements struck between members of the Mafia or other "men of honor" in our own society.) That explains why the texts on adelphopoiesis in the prayerbooks are embedded within sections dealing with other kinship-forming rituals, such as marriage and adoption. Giovanni Tomassia in the 1880s and Paul Koschaker in the 1930s, whose works Boswell knows and cites, had already reached this conclusion.

It should be noted that historian Robert Brain has also traced these ceremonies from Pagan "blood brotherhood" ceremonies through medieval Catholic ceremonies called "gossipry" or "siblings before God," on to modern ceremonies in some Latin American countries referred to as "compadrazgo"; Brain considers the ceremonies to refer to romantic friendship.21

Friendship is a term used to denote co-operative and supportive behavior between two or more humans. This article focuses on the notion specific to interpersonal relationships. In this sense, the term connotes a relationship which involves mutual knowledge, esteem, and affection. Friends will welcome each other's company and exhibit loyalty towards each other, often to the point of altruism. Their tastes will usually be similar and may converge, and they will share enjoyable activities. They will also engage in mutually helping behavior, such as exchange of advice and the sharing of hardship. A friend is someone who may often demonstrate reciprocating and reflective behaviors. Yet for many, friendship is nothing more than the trust that someone or something will not harm them. Value that is found in friendships is often the result of a friend demonstrating on a consistent basis:

the tendency to desire what is best for the other,

sympathy and empathy,

honesty, perhaps in situations where it may be difficult for others to speak the truth, especially in terms of pointing out the perceived faults of one's counterpart

mutual understanding.

In a comparison of personal relationships, friendship is considered to be closer than association, although there is a range of degrees of intimacy in both friendships and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. The study of friendship is included in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Various theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social psychology, social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. See Interpersonal relationships

Contents

1 History of Friendship

o 1.1 Russia

o 1.2 Greece

o 1.3 Asia

o 1.4 Modern west

2 Decline of friendship

3 Developmental issues

4 Types of friendship

5 Non-personal friendships

6 Interspecies friendship and animal friendship

7 Colloquial terms

8 Friendship contrasted with comradeship

9 Bibliography

10 See also

11 References

12 External links

History of Friendship

Friendship is considered one of the central human experiences, and has been sanctified by all major religions. The Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian poem that is among the earliest known literary works in history, chronicles in great depth the friendship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The Greco-Roman had, as a paramount example, the friendship of Orestes and Pylades. The Abrahamic faiths have the story of David and Jonathan. Friendship played an important role in German Romanticism. A good example for this is Schiller's The Hostage (ballad). The Christian Gospels state that Jesus Christ declared, "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(John 15:13).

In philosophy, Aristotle is perhaps best known for his discussion (in the Nicomachean Ethics) of philia, which is usually (somewhat misleadingly) translated as "friendship", and certainly included friendship, though is a much broader concept.

Cultural variations: (stub-section) A group of friends consists of two or more people who are in a mutually pleasing relationship engendering a sentiment of camaraderie, exclusivity and mutual trust. There are varying degrees of "closeness" between friends. Hence, some people choose to differentiate and categorize friendships based on this sentiment.

Russia

The relationship is constructed differently in different cultures. In Russia, for example, one typically accords very few people the status of "friend". These friendships however make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A norm of polite behaviour is addressing "acquaintances" by full first name plus patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal and visit, and so on. Physical contact between friends is expected, and friends, whether or not of the same sex, will embrace, sometimes kiss and walk in public with their arms around each other, or arm-in-arm, or hand-in-hand (like kids often do), without the slightest embarrassment or sexual connotation - this is not often seen in the modern Russia, and may be some highly outdated norm.

According to Oleg Kharkhordin in a paper on the politics of friendship, in Soviet society, friendships were "a suspect value for the Stalinist regime" in that they presented a stronger allegiance that could stand in possible opposition to allegiance to the Communist party. "By definition, a friend was an individual who would not let you down even under direct menace to him- or herself; a person to whom one could securely entrust one's controversial thoughts since he or she would never betray them, even under pressure. Friendship thus in a sense became an ultimate value produced in resistance struggles in the Soviet Union". 1

Greece

In Ancient Greece, in a text in defence of pederasty, Plato asserts: "the interests of rulers require that their subjects should be poor in spirit, and that there should be no strong bond of friendship or society among them, which love, above all other motives, is likely to inspire, as our Athenian tyrants learned by experience; for the love of Aristogeiton and the constancy of Harmodius had a strength which undid their power." (Symposium; 182c)

For Aristotle's position, see Philia.

Asia

In the Middle East and Central Asia male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend also to be reserved and respectable in nature.

Modern west

In the Western world, intimate physical contact has been sexualised in the public mind over the last one hundred years and is considered taboo in friendship, especially between two males. However, stylized hugging or kissing may be considered acceptable, depending on the context (see, for example, the kiss the tramp gives the kid in The Kid). In Spain and other Mediterranean countries men may embrace each other in public and kiss each other on the cheek. This is not limited solely to older generations but rather is present throughout all generations. In young children throughout the modern western world, friendship, usually of a homosocial nature, typically exhibits elements of a closeness and intimacy suppressed later in life in order to conform to societal standards.

Decline of friendship

The number and quality of friendships for the average American has been declining since at least 1985, according to a 2006 study.1 The study states that 25% of Americans have no close confidants, and that the average total number of confidants per person has dropped to 2.

In recent times, some thinkers have postulated that modern friendships have lost the force and importance that they had in antiquity. C. S. Lewis for example, in his The Four Loves, writes:

"To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it. We admit of course that besides a wife and family a man needs a few 'friends'. But the very tone of the admission, and the sort of acquaintanceships which those who make it would describe as 'friendships', show clearly that what they are talking about has very little to do with that Philia which Aristotle classified among the virtues or that Amicitia on which Cicero wrote a book."

Likewise, Paul Halsall claims that:

"The intense emotional and affective relationships described in the past as "non-sexual" cannot be said to exist today: modern heterosexual men can be buddies, but unless drunk they cannot touch each other, or regularly sleep together. They cannot affirm that an emotional affective relationship with another man is the centrally important relationship in their lives. It is not going too far, is it, to claim that friendship - if used to translate Greek philia or Latin amicitia - hardly exists among heterosexual men in modern Western society."

Mark McLelland, writing in the Western Buddhist Review under his Buddhist name of Dharmachari Jñanavira (Article), more directly points to homophobia being at the root of a modern decline in the western tradition of friendship:

"Hence, in our cultural context where homosexual desire has for centuries been considered sinful, unnatural and a great evil, the experience of homoerotic desire can be very traumatic for some individuals and severely limit the potential for same-sex friendship. The Danish sociologist Henning Bech, for instance, writes of the anxiety which often accompanies developing intimacy between male friends:

"'The more one has to assure oneself that one's relationship with another man is not homosexual, the more conscious one becomes that it might be, and the more necessary it becomes to protect oneself against it. The result is that friendship gradually becomes impossible.'"

Their opinion that fear of being, or being seen as, homosexual has killed off western man's ability to form close friendships with other men is shared by Japanese psychologist Doi Takeo, who claims that male friendships in American society are fraught with homosexual anxiety and thus homophobia is a limiting factor stopping men from establishing deep friendships with other men.

The suggestion that friendship contains an ineluctable element of erotic desire is not new, but has been advanced by students of friendship ever since the time of the ancient Greeks, where it comes up in the writings of Plato. More recently, the Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger claimed that:

"There is no friendship between men that has not an element of sexuality in it, however little accentuated it may be in the nature of the friendship, and however painful the idea of the sexual element would be. But it is enough to remember that there can be no friendship unless there has been some attraction to draw the men together. Much of the affection, protection, and nepotism between men is due to the presence of unsuspected sexual compatibility." (Sex and Character, 1903)

Recent western scholarship in gender theory and feminism concurs, as reflected in the writings of Eve Sedgwick in her The Epistemology of the Closet, and Jonathan Dollimore in his Sexual Dissidence and Cultural Change: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucaul|

Developmental issues

In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships later in life. However making friends seems to trouble lots of people; having no friends can be emotionally damaging in some cases. Sometimes going years without a single friend can lead to suicide.

Love is a constellation of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection or profound oneness.1 The meaning of love varies relative to context. Romantic love is seen as an ineffable feeling of intense attraction shared in passionate or intimate attraction and intimate interpersonal and sexual relationships.2 Though often linked to personal relations, love is often given a broader signification, a love of humanity, of nature, with life itself, or a oneness with the Universe, a universal love or karma. Love can also be construed as Platonic love,3 religious love,4 familial love, and, more casually, great affection for anything considered strongly pleasurable, desirable, or preferred, to include activities and foods.52 This diverse range of meanings in the singular word love is often contrasted with the plurality of Greek words for love, reflecting the concept's depth, versatility, and complexity.

Contents

1 Definitions

2 Scientific views

o 2.1 Biology of love

o 2.2 Psychology of love

3 Philosophical views

4 Religious views

5 Cultural views

6 See also

7 Notes

8 References

Definitions

The definition of love is the subject of considerable debate, enduring speculation and thoughtful introspection. The difficulty of finding a universal definition for love is typically tackled by classifying it into types, such as passionate love, romantic love, and committed love. These types of love can often be generalized into a level of sexual attraction. In common use, love has two primary meanings, the first being an indication of adoration for another person or thing, and the second being a state of relational status. Love is an act of identifying with a person or thing, capable of even including oneself (cf. narcissism; reverence). Dictionaries tend to define love as deep affection or fondness.1 In colloquial use, according to polled opinion, the most favored definitions of love involve altruism, selflessness, friendship, union, family, and bonding or connecting with another.6

Thomas Jay Oord has defined love in various scholarly publications as acting intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being. Oord means for his definition to be sufficient for research in ethics, religion, and science.

The different aspects of love can be roughly illustrated by comparing their corollaries and opposites. As a general expression of positive sentiment (a stronger form of like), love is commonly contrasted with hate (or neutral apathy); as a less sexual and more mutual and "pure" form of romantic attachment, love is commonly contrasted with lust; and as an interpersonal relationship with romantic overtones, love is commonly contrasted with friendship, although other connotations of love may be applied to close friendships as well.

The very existence of love is sometimes subject to debate. Some categorically reject the notion as false or meaningless.citation needed Others call it a recently-invented abstraction, sometimes dating the "invention" to courtly Europe during or after the Middle Ages.citation needed Others maintain that love really exists, and is not an abstraction, but is undefinable, being essentially spiritual or metaphysical in nature.citation needed Some psychologists maintain that love is the action of lending one's "boundary" or "self-esteem" to another.citation needed Others attempt to define love by applying the definition to everyday life.citation needed

Cultural differences make any universal definition of love difficult to establish. Expressions of love may include the love for a soul or mind, the love of laws and organizations, love for a body, love for nature, love of food, love of money, love for learning, love of power, love of fame, love for the respect of others, etc. Different people place varying degrees of importance on the kinds of love they receive. Love is essentially an abstract concept,citation needed easier to experience than to explain. Because of the complex and abstract nature of love, discourse on love is commonly reduced to a thought-terminating cliché, and there are a number of common proverbs regarding love, from Virgil's "Love conquers all" to The Beatles' "All you need is love".

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.

You can help Wikipedia by improving these statements.

Scientific views

Main article: Love (scientific views)

Throughout history, philosophy and religion have done the most speculation on the phenomenon of love. In the last century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject. In recent years, the sciences of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, neuroscience, and biology have added to the understanding of the nature and function of love.

Biology of love

Further information: Interpersonal chemistry

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive,citation needed much like hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.7

Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding which promotes relationships that last for many years, and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin than short-term relationships have.7

In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love than as compared to either of the control groups.8

Psychology of love

Further information: Human bonding

Psychology depicts love as a cognitive and social phenomenon. Psychologist Robert Sternberg formulated a triangular theory of love and argued that love has three different components: Intimacy, Commitment, and Passion. Intimacy is a form by which two people can share secrets and various details of their personal lives. Intimacy is usually shown in friendships and romantic love affairs. Commitment, on the other hand, is the expectation that the relationship is going to last forever. The last and most common form of love is sexual attraction and passion. Passionate love is shown in infatuation as well as romantic love. This led researchers such as Yelacitation needed to further refine the model by separating Passion into two independents components: Erotic Passion and Romantic Passion.

Following developments in electrical theories, such as Coulomb's law, which showed that positive and negative charges attract, analogs in human life were developed, such as "opposites attract". Over the last century, research on the nature of human mating has generally found this not to be true when it comes to character and personality; people tend to like people like themselves. However, in a few unusual and specific domains, such as immune systems, it seems that humans prefer other who are unlike themselves (e.g. with an orthagonal immune system), since this will lead to a baby which has the best of both worlds. 9 In recent years, various human bonding theories have been developed described in terms of attachments, ties, bonds, and or affinities.

Some Western authorities disaggregate into two main components, the altruistic and the narcissistic. This view is represented in the works of Scott Peck, whose works in the field of applied psychology explored the definitions of love and evil. Peck maintains that love is a combination of the"'concern for the spiritual growth of another", and simple narcissism.10 In combination, love is an activity, not simply a feeling.

Philosophical views

People, throughout history, have often considered phenomena such as "love at first sight" or "instant friendships" to be the result of an uncontrollable force of attraction or affinity.11 One of the first to theorize in this direction was the Greek philosopher Empedocles, who in the 4th century BC argued for the existence of two forces, love (philia) and strife (neikos), which were used to account for the causes of motion in the universe. These two forces were said to intermingle with the classical elements, i.e., earth, water, air, and fire, in such a manner that love served as the binding power linking the various parts of existence harmoniously together.

Later, Plato interpreted Empedocles' two agents as attraction and repulsion, stating that their operation is conceived in an alternate sequence.12 From these arguments, Plato originated the concept of "likes attract", e.g., earth is attracted to earth, water to water, and fire to fire. In modern terms this is often phrased in terms of "birds of a feather flock together".

Bertrand Russell describes love as a condition of "absolute value", as opposed to relative value. Thomas Jay Oord defines love as acting intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being. Oord means for his definition to be adequate for religion, philosophy, and the sciences. Robert A. Heinlein, one of the most prolific science fiction writers of the 20th century, defined love in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land as the point of emotional connection which leads to the happiness of another being essential to one's own well being. This definition ignores the ideas of religion and science and instead focuses on the meaning of love as it relates to the individual.

Also, an ancient proverb states that love is a high form of tolerance. This view is one that many philosophers and scholars have researched, and is widely accepted.

Religious views

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.

Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

Globe icon The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The neutrality of this section is disputed.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Main article: Love (religious views)

Love in early religions was a mixture of ecstatic devotion and ritualized obligation to idealized natural forces (pagan polytheism).citation needed Later religions shifted emphasis towards single abstractly-oriented objects like God, law, church and state (formalized monotheism). A third view, pantheism, recognizes a state or truth distinct from (and often antagonistic to) the idea that there is a difference between the worshiping subject and the worshiped object. Love is reality, of which we, moving through time, imperfectly interpret ourselves as an isolated part.citation needed

The Bible speaks of love as a set of attitudes and actions that are far broader than the concept of love as an emotional attachment. Love is seen as a set of behaviors that humankind is encouraged to act out. One is encouraged not just to love one's partner, or even one's friends but also to love one's enemies. The Bible describes this type of active love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

" Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. "

Romantic love is also present in the Bible, particularly the Song of Songs. Traditionally, this book has been interpreted allegorically as a picture of God's love for Israel and the Church. When taken naturally, we see a picture of ideal human marriage:13

" Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealously unyielding as the grave. It burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned. "

The passage dodi li v'ani lo, i.e. "my beloved is mine and I am my beloved", from Song of Songs 2:16, is an example of a biblical quote commonly engraved on wedding bands.

The Bible states love is a characteristic of God. I John 4:8 states "God is Love". In essence, God is the epitomy of love - in action and relation. It is God that first loved mankind and desired a relationship. (John 3:16-17) Love is the underlying drive in most people.citation needed The search for love seems endless within the human race, throughout the ages.citation needed The Bible defines God as being the completeness of love. Love, as being defined by Him, is demonstrated in his character and personality. Another way of defining this type of love is "godly love", a love shown through the example of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. However, this "sacrificial" love can also be expressed by humans, although imperfectly. For example, the love of a mother for her child. Many mothers would sacrifice anything for their children. It is this type of love that the Bible teaches us to follow and to share with one another. Love, in the end, is truly a sacrifice, ultimately expressed in the crucifixion of Jesus as described in the New Testament. C.S. Lewis discusses Christian ideas about love in his book The Four Loves

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, defines Love as one of 7 synonyms for God. This indicates that Deity is more than a being that has benevolent concerns for mankind, but rather that God is Love itself. Love is also synonymous with Principle, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Life, and Truth and indicate the depth and wholeness of Love.citation needed

In Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, there are six words for Unconditional Love (Kenoota, Khooba, Makikh, Abilii, Rukha and Dadcean Libhoun) which are untranslatable and are all translated as the one word "Love" in the English Bible. They are explained here

The Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture, helps devotees to see that love conquers all. It says, "Sattva-pure, luminous, and free from sorrow-binds us to happiness and wisdom" (Number 6). Sattva, translated as purity, helps one to see that love evolves from selflessness.

Platonic love in its modern popular sense is a non-sexual affectionate relationship, especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise. 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.

At the same time, this interpretation is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Platonic ideal of love, which from its origin was that of a chaste but passionate love, based not on lack of interest but on spiritual transmutation of the sex force, opening up vast expanses of subtler enjoyments than sex. In its original Platonic form, this love was meant to bring the lovers closer to wisdom and the Platonic Form of Beauty. It is described in depth in Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. In the Phaedrus, it is said to be a form of divine madness that is a gift from the gods, and that its proper expression is rewarded by the gods in the afterlife; in the Symposium, the method by which love takes one to the form of beauty and wisdom is detailed.

Contents

1 History

2 Paradox

3 References

4 External link

5 See also

History

Part of a series on Love

Historically

Courtly love

Greek love

Religious love

Types of Emotion

Erotic love

Platonic love

Familial love

Puppy love

Romantic love

Paradox

Ironically, the very eponym of this love, Plato, as well as the forementioned Socrates and Ficino, all belonged to the community of men who desired boys, and they all engaged in erotic pedagogic friendships with youths. The concept of platonic love thus arose within the context of the debate pitting mundane sexually expressed pederasty against the philosophic - or chaste - pederasty elaborated in Plato's writings (Symposium, Phaedrus, Laws, and others).

Plato and his companions.

Regarding Socrates, John Addington Symonds in his A Problem in Greek Ethics states that he "...avows a fervent admiration for beauty in the persons of young men. At the same time he declares himself upon the side of temperate and generous affection, and strives to utilize the erotic enthusiasm as a motive power in the direction of philosophy." According to Linda Rapp, Ficino, by platonic love, meant "...a relationship that included both the physical and the spiritual. Thus, Ficino's view is that love is the desire for beauty, which is the image of the divine."1

Because of the common modern definition, platonic love can be seen as paradoxical in light of these philosophers' life experiences and teachings. Plato and his peers did not teach that a man's relationship with a youth should lack an erotic dimension, but rather that the longing for the beauty of the boy is a foundation of the friendship and love between those two. However, having acknowledged that the man's erotic desire for the youth magnetizes and energizes the relationship, they countered that it is wiser for this eros to not be sexually expressed, but instead be redirected into the intellectual and emotional spheres.

To resolve this confusion, French scholars found it helpful to distinguish between amour platonique (the concept of non-sexual love) and amour platonicien (love according to Plato). When the term "Platonic love" is used today, it generally does not describe this aspect of Plato's views of love.

The understanding that Platonic love could be interpreted as masculine eros is alleged by some socio-historical critics to be linked with the social construction of a homosexual identity citation needed, and the cultural model of platonic friendship / pederasty was supposedly used by educated gay men since the early Renaissancecita

A casual relationship is a term used to describe the physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have a sexual relationship or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting a more formal relationship as a goal. It is more than a one-night stand or just casual sex. Related terms are buddies with benies, cut friends, an extended hookup, a fling, friends with benefits (FWB), friends with privileges, sex buddies, or a sexualized friendship. There are significant gender and cultural differences in acceptance of and breadth of casual relationships,1234 as well as in regrets about action/inaction in those relationships.5

A casual relationship may be part time, or for a limited time, and may or may not be monogamous. The term encompasses friendships between people who enjoy each other's physical intimacy but do not aspire to be long-term, rather the parties desire temporary relationships purely for sexual purposes. In each case, the relationship's dominance in the lives of those involved is being voluntarily limited, and there is usually a sense that the relationship is intended to endure only so long as both parties wish it to.

To the extent such relationship include casual sexual contact, the relationship is generally focused on fulfulling sexual rather than romantic or emotional needs. Some commentators are critical of the nature of these relationships, alleging that it is impossible to engage in sexual behaviours without any kind of lasting emotional bond. The practitioners viewpoint may be that while the physical relationship alone is fine, it is up to the partners to decide whether emerging emotions allow the friendship to evolve into commitment. In some instances where both parties start to feel this way, a traditional relationship may develop.

Motives for casual relationships vary, and should be distinguished from casual sex, which is specific type of casual relationship. Casual relationships sometimes include mutual support, affection and enjoyment, which underpin other forms of loving relationship.

One of the reasons argued by people who enter a casual relationship is that the amount of effort, time and money that has to be spent is minimal in comparison to a long-term relationship. As a result both people are able to enjoy the physical aspect of a relationship and do not have to be 'dating' in order for this to happen. Additionally this type of interaction is often initiated through a booty call.

Contents

1 More than working relationship less than romantic

2 Ficar

3 Criticisms

4 References

5 See also

6 External links

More than working relationship less than romantic

Although this sort of relationship is often portrayed as a relatively new phenomenon, the phrase "friends with benefits" was around for many years before it was popularized for a younger generation in the mid-1990s by the Alanis Morissette song "Head Over Feet" and a decade later in the television series Boston Legal.

The television sitcom Sex and the City focused further on casual sexual relationships. The intent of a casual relationship can vary: sometimes to relieve sexual frustrations and other times simply as a friendship or part-time relationship, which includes sexual activity when wished. Some people prefer the term 'Lovers without commitment'. Usually a casual relationship is not intended as a romantic relationship. It is also not always synonymous with casual sex.

There are instances in which a genuine friendship exists between the two parties involved, along with some degree of sexual attraction to one. Varying degrees of emotional intimacy can be attributed to such a relationship, but this intimacy, although usually different from that of a committed relationship, is far from weak.

Sometimes both parties are free to date and engage in sex acts with other persons, however, others choose to have exclusive casual relationships. These types of relationships effectively give an outlet for sexual and intimacy needs without the potential stress and time-demands of a committed relationship. Two people may elect to become friends with benefits because they are unwilling to commit to a full-fledged relationship or long term relationship for whatever reason.

This arrangement is common among young professionals, who put a lot of time into work and therefore do not have time for a boyfriend or girlfriend. Some claim that it also allows people who have sexual chemistry to use each other, even if they are not compatible on other levels.

In some cases the people involved limit their activities to masturbating each other or simply watching. This may happen, for example, amongst people sharing a student house.

These relationships are associated with younger people (early teenagers), and are often seen as a way to enjoy the benefits of sexual activities without the emotional strings of a romantic relationship. According to many teens, these relationships have been going on for some time, and it is estimated that at least 32% of people over 13 have had such an experience, despite limitations due to age of consent lawscitation needed. While providing a sexual outlet for some people, the practice is still associated with negative connotations. In teenage relationships in the US, the predominant activity is not penetrative sex, but rather oral sex and mutual masturbation. Many teenagers believe that this reduces the risks associated with sexual promiscuity such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Some medical authorities such as Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, a professor of pediatrics, suggests that teenagers do not view oral sex as "real sex" and use it to remain in a state of "technical" virginity.6

Ficar

Ficar is a slang expression in Brazilian Portuguese, literally translated as the verb "to stay" and represents the act of having an intimate relationship of casual nature and weak commitment with another person. It is a phenomenon observed mostly amongst teenagers as part of courtship process.

The act of ficar consists of, at least, a kiss between two individuals. It may last for hours, usually in social events (such as parties, cinemas, gatherings, etc.), depending on how "satisfied" both individuals are or how crushed on each other they were before. Individuals may meet again and continue with ficar for days, weeks or months, if they feel like.

During this early stage, fidelity and commitment are not necessarily implied and one of them may choose to pull out. It is also possible that both choose to hide the facts from colleagues or not-so-close friends to avoid gossip or embarrassment. If this relationship lingers on and both feel acquainted enough, one part may ask to start a more "serious" relationship (known as namoro), where fidelity and commitment are expected and secrecy is dropped. Sometimes, the relationship may develop into namoro without any explicit request. In some cases, people may choose to never commit or commit loosely, as in an open relationship.

At teenagers parties, one may approach several individuals (strangers included), proposing "ficar" with someone, who may or may not accept. Normally, this involves dancing, chatting, buying a drink, etc. and is called trovar, chegar, dar idéia, paquerar, rasgar, depending on the regional slang. Not accepting someone's proposal is called dar um fora.

Ficar usually includes only making out but, depending on age, cultural background and situation, it can also include sex.

Criticisms

Some people prefer the term "Lovers Without Commitment" or "Friends with Benefits", as a description of the actual status within their relationships.

Others believe that the framework of casual relationships is unrealistic because strong emotions will inevitably come into play. It is generally acknowledged that a frequent cause for the termination of such relationships is the development of a one-sided romantic attachment.

Being a "friend with benefits" is sometimes an option given to someone who has been in a steady relationship following a "breakup". Many times former partners will choose this route because of limitations on a steady relationship. Some claim this kind of situation may lead to strengthened bond and a more stable relationship if and when those circumstances pass, although others claim that it is more probable that the relationship will in fact be ruined.

The term "friend with benefits" might be used to describe what would more accurately be called "emotional friend with benefits." An example would be a romance that is no longer as enchanting; both parties ostensibly want to make the relationship work, but fail to do so. A "friends with benefits" arrangement fills the interval between the loss of romantic interest and renewal of such passion.

An emotional affair is an affair excluding sexual intimacy but including emotional intimacy. It is a form of chaste nonmonogamy, one without actual, physical consummation. When the affair breaches a monogamous agreement with one or other spouses, then the term infidelity may be more apt. Infidelity tends to exclude one or both spouses of the affair's partners. Using the absence of any sexual activity may neutralize the sense of extramarital wrongdoing by one or both partner's of an emotional affair.

Emotional affairs can be portrayed in fictional writing or drama as life changing experiences (good or bad), subjects of racy romance stories that teeter on the edge. However, they can also be catastrophic for all concerned when it is clandestine, unsanctioned and unintentionally exposed.

Sometimes an emotional affair can be more insulting to a committed relationship than if it were a one night stand or about casual sex. The interpersonal attraction may be a result of propinquity (physical or psychological proximity), physical attraction or a perceived lack of interpersonal chemistry in the primary relationship.

David Moultrup has broadly defined an extramarital affair as

a relationship between a person and someone other than (their) spouse (or lover) that has an impact on the level of intimacy, emotional distance and overall dynamic balance in the marriage. The role of an affair is to create emotional distance in the marriage. The critical principle to consider is the possibility of unconscious emotional benefits gained by the uninvolved spouse. The goal of therapy is to resolve the intimacy problems in the couple relationship so that an affair will no longer be 'needed.' This model does not consider the possibility of accidental affairs nor those that arise out of individual pathology or habit rather than relationship difficulties.

This viewpoint does not require sexual play or sexual intercourse in order to define the presence of nor the impact of an affair on a committed relationship. Moultrup is the author of 'Husbands, Wives & Lovers' 1 and has contributed to 'The Handbook of the Clinical Treatment of Infidelity' 2.

Chaste, emotionally intimate affairs tend to be more common than sexually intimate affairs. Shirley Glass in her study, reported in 'Not Just Friends' 3 'that 44% of husbands and 57% of wives indicated that in their affair they had a strong emotional involvement to the other person without intercourse.' 4 5

In University of Chicago surveys conducted by NORC 6 between 1990 and 2002, 27% of people who reported being happy in marriage admitted to having an extramarital affair. What infidelity means depends on who you ask and the statistics are of course, misleading. Sexual feelings in an emotional affair are necessarily denied in order to maintain the illusion that it is just a special friendship. Affair surveys are unlikely to explore what is denied. Many people in affair surveys are not honest with themselves nor with the interviewer 7 8.

On the romantic friendship page there are a number of 'special friendships' in popular culture. Each are examples of one form of human bonding or another. Some can be distinguished from emotional affairs by the absence of an apparent third party or spouse. Each may be synonymous with platonic love or spiritual friendship. Some may exist alongside or in support of a spiritual marriage, a sexless marriage or a marriage of convenience. Any of those terms may just be a cover for what is hidden from public gaze.

What is emotional cheating?

This type of affair is often characterized by:

Inappropriate emotional intimacy. The partner being unfaithful may spend inappropriate or excessive time with someone of the opposite or same gender (time not shared with the faithful partner). He or she may confide more in their new "friend" than in their partner and may share more intimate emotional feelings and secrets with their new partner than with their existing spouse. Any time that an individual invests more emotionally into a relationship with someone besides their partner the existing partnership may suffer.

Deception and secrecy. Those involved may not tell their partners about the amount of time they spend with each other. An individual involved in this type of affair may, for example, tell his or her spouse that they are doing other activities when they are really meeting with someone else. Or the unfaithful spouse may exclude any mention of the other person while discussing the day's activities to conceal the rendezvous. Even if no physical intimacy occurs, the deception clearly shows that those involved believe they are doing something wrong that undermines the existing relationship. In other words, if there was really no harm in meeting with a friend, both parties would feel comfortable telling their partners the truth about where they are meeting and what they are discussing.

An emotional triangle. One that may only be known to the unfaithful, who then struggles to keep the other two from knowing of the impact of one upon the other. Denial will likely characterize the unfaithful person's response to an invitation by their spouse to reflect on the competing demands of the relationship with the other person.

Sexual and emotional chemistry. Emotional affairs may not always lead to physical intimacy, but some do. The time between the first meeting and a first kiss can often be very lengthy, but the time between the first kiss and sexual intercourse may be very short. In most of these affairs, however, an unspoken attraction exists. A partner may spend extra time getting ready before seeing this "friend" or may buy new clothing or change their appearance in order to seem attractive to them. They may obsess anticipating phone calls, emails or text messages.

Denial. Denial of the presence of sexual behavior, sexuality or even of an atom of limerence. "Limerence is an involuntary cognitive and emotional state in which a person feels an intense romantic desire for another person. It is characterized by intrusive thinking and pronounced sensitivity to external events that reflect the disposition of the limerent object towards the individual."

Betrayal. There is an implicit betrayal of beliefs, believed to have been shared, about the sanctity of being in love, of a soulmate and of being faithful to values of intimacy perceived by the spouse not involved in the affair to be a core of their committed relationship

An affair may refer to a form of nonmonogamy or to infidelity in marriage. It may be used as a euphemism and in some cases to add glamour to an illicit liaison. Describing a relationship as an 'affair' may be inaccurate or intentionally damaging. It may or may not involve either or both romance or sex. In the romantic friendship article are numerous examples of 'special friendships' in popular culture many apparently without sex. Some are distinguishable from an emotional affair.

Affair has the same word origins as affect - an affair implies bonds of affection, but not necessarily so. Some affairs are premeditatively cold. Some exploitative or designed to extract information by stealth. Some are entered into in order to provide the basis for later blackmail. And some are set up in order to provide grounds for divorce in jurisdictions that lack no-fault divorce laws.citation needed That is then referred to as adultery. Affair, in lay and professional usage, does not require any of the parties to be married, though often one is in a committed relationship. Adultery refers more specifically to those in a legal married relationship.

In the most general sense, affair may be used to connote professional, personal, or public business. These include meetings or other functions, or tasks that need to be completed. For example, one might say, "I have other affairs to attend to at the moment." It may also refer to a particular business or private activity, as in family affair or private affair. An affair, in the political sense, typically refers to any kind of involvement in illicit business by any kind of public representatives, such as in the Watergate affair. Like the earlier definition this is not always the case - for example the British Government has a Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which is a perfectly legitimate (and usually honorable) position.

Contents

1 Sex and romance

2 Famous affairs

3 Further reading