What Is Romance?

This thread is intended to be a spin-off of a certain other thread. Specifically starting from the following post ... http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=408134

I have been thinking about that post, and it has occurred to me that I don't know how to define "romance." I don't know how to define "friendship." More importantly, I don't know how to describe the difference between friendship and romance. Can you help me?

Keep in mind that you can be friends with benefits. You can have a NSA ONS. You can also have asexual romance. Am I right? So sexual attraction is not necessarily part of the definitions/difference between friendship and romance. What, then, is the difference? Are friendship and romance basically the same kind of thing, only romance is more intimate/intense? and what about romance between spouses who have been married for 50 years? long past the expiration date of NRE. Romance isn't necessarily emotional intensity/excitement. So what is it? and how does friendship differ?

Wiktionary definitions:

• Friendship: the condition of being friends.
• Friend: a person other than a family member, spouse or lover whose company one enjoys and towards whom one feels affection.
• Romance:
  • an intimate relationship between two people; a love affair,
  • a strong obsession or attachment for something or someone,
  • idealized love which is pure or beautiful.

Those definitions are useful up to a certain point, but they don't quite cover the difference between friendship and romance. Is a friendship not intimate? Are you satisfied with Wiktionary's definition? Why or why not?

I would be much obliged for any insight you can offer. Thanks for reading this post.

These are good questions!

I suspect the word 'friendship' designates several or more very different phenomena, which vary in kind and in intensity -- and perhaps in other ways also. Throughout my life, I've had many very different kinds of friends. Some I wanted to see with great frequency, and they wanted the same with me. Others I could see only occasionally, but loved being with them when we were together. The levels of intimacy varied, as did the level of desire and dependency we had on one another. Some had something like a 'romantic' feel, though there was no particular desire to be sexual with them.

One way (and it's only one valid way, and may not be quite so valid as it may seem on first blush) to get a handle on these terms (friend, romance...) would be to explore the ever-shifting cultural-historical nature of the terms. The word "romantic" has a clear enough history, after all. We know when it first came into use, and how and why. But as time went on it may have lost some of its original meanings and adopted new ones. It's just a word, after all, and one only has to consult an etymological dictionary to see that and how words are always shifting meaning over time. One can study the shifting meaning of these words to get a handle on what they now mean to us, in our culture -- whatever that means (!).

Many people today (in, for example, the United States) may never have experienced friendship as earlier generations of people have. I think we may be much more lax and casual about friendship than, say, Americans in the middle of the nineteenth century. We may rarely experience the depth of bond and warmth and comfort that some people in some places and time know as friendship -- though they may use a Chinese or an African or a Thai name for what we roughly mean by 'friendship'. I wonder if anyone has ever done a cross-cultural, anthropological and historical study of friendship? I bet that would be fascinating reading!

In my mind, a friendship -- the real deal -- is a loving relationship. Love need not imply sex or 'romance' in the usual, contemporary sense. Some people have had very profound, loving relationships with great depths of intimacy and affection and bonding which look in every way like 'romance,' but which were not sexual relationships. There's even a term for it: "romantic friendship".

I have recently read articles online about how young, heterosexual British men, recently, are routinely expressing to one another a kind of passionate, loving affection which in recent Western history only happened in relationships which were both 'romantic' and sexual (or, at least, sexually charged). I hear that they will tell one another that they love one another, blow each other kisses, send each other messages with hearts in 'em, embrace frequently ..., cuddle, and even sleep together in the same bed. But the relationship isn't what we usually think of as a love affair, and no sex is involved. I rather envy them for this freedom of expression, actually. Were I a straight boy as a kid, I'd have certainly wanted all of that with one or more of my straight buddies. It seems perfectly natural and human to me.

"A recent survey conducted by British sociologists found that 93 percent of young straight men in the UK have cuddled with another male friend."

https://www.boytoyconfidential.com/blog/2015/03/22/why-straight-british-guy-friends-love-to-cuddle

Click to expand...

Also, in some counties (other than the USA) it is commonplace for men or boys (for example) to walk arm in arm or hand in hand and to show great physical and emotional affection with one another, and even to cuddle. Folks from other countries moving to or visiting the USA are puzzled by our general lack of affection and warmth. We feel distant and a bit arid to them.


Edit:

I used the word "dependency" (a rough synonym for 'attachment' in this context) earlier in relation to friendship. It felt a little awkward to use that word, because various factors have conspired to cause me to doubt the okayness of dependency / attachment. After all, I've been rather steeped in Buddhist thought for a long time -- even though lately I tend not to call myself a Buddhist. And because dependency is generally frowned upon in our culture, even outside of Buddhist circles. Also, I wasn't really supported in being or expressing dependency / attachment when I was most ... well, dependent. Which is to say when I was a child. I'm still recovering / healing from that. But, dammit, I am really now wanting to defend the virtue of dependency (healthy dependency) in close, loving friendships and in loving relationships. It's natural and human to be dependent on those we have enduring and close connections with. It's not shame-worthy at all. And so I'll go ahead and say it: I think truly and fully human loving relationships involve some level and kind of dependency. Even in adults. Period.

Thanks for sharing those thoughts River, you make some excellent points. I am especially intrigued by the term "romantic friendship" (as if things weren't already confusing enough! ).

The first time I did something which must probably be called "falling in love" was when I was quite a young boy (maybe age 7 or 8. Maybe 6. It's a little murky what my age was then. I may well have been only about 6)... I was head over heels for another boy.

I don't remember any sexual fantasies directed at him. It wasn't erotic in that sense. I just wanted always to be with him and close -- as close as humanly possible. Not just in physical proximity, but in every way.

Whatever "romance" is as a feeling, I'm sure I had this toward this boy in spades. I suspect the feeling which we call "romance" is a mix of

• passionate desire for closeness (intimacy, connection, physical proximity, lots of time together
• rapturous joy in the presence of the other, at least at times
• discomfort or pain if there must be parting for more than a shortish time.

Sometimes there is a 'sexual' tone to this feeling and sometimes not. But I'd say it's always "erotic" -- in a certain sense of the term. Not all eros is sexual in nature. But eros and sex share a common root in feeling / energy.

It just occurred to me -- maybe fully for the fist time! -- that the intensity of the two directions eros may take, just illustrated, can be no less when the sexual-erotic component is missing (!). I think we overly associate eros with sex, in other words. I was passionately in love with my boy friend (boy, friend) at that tender age. I wanted to be with him always. And I cried my little boy eyes out when it was clear I'd never see him again.

Just in case it isn't already clear, what I have just said is in response to your words, KDT:

kdt26417 said:

I am especially intrigued by the term "romantic friendship" (as if things weren't already confusing enough! ).

Click to expand...

I think I may possibly have made things a little less confusing, by saying that at least some friendships are, indeed, intensely passionate and erotic even though there may not be any overt or explicit sexual dimension (such as sexual fantasy or longing) to the bond.

Proposal: A relationship is "romantic" when this intensely passionate bond is present -- even if other components of what is called a "romantic relationship" are not present.

Re:

"I was passionately in love with my boy friend (boy, friend) at that tender age. I wanted to be with him always. And I cried my little boy eyes out when it was clear I'd never see him again."

Click to expand...

Reminds me of my first heavy-duty crush, in 7th Grade. She moved away and wow did I cry. I can empathize with what you went through, I feel bad about that.

One thing that confuses me about this whole romance (versus friendship) thing is, I have been with Snowbunny now for over twelve years, and I still consider my relationship with her to be romantic, but I don't know why. Is it because she and I still have sex? I don't think I could say I have a passionate desire for closeness with her, nor rapturous joy in her presence, nor even do I particularly miss her when she's away. So what does that leave? I feel that I must be missing something.

I find myself struggling with words a little, which I see as a good thing since words tend to matter to me. Gives me some things to think about, at least. So please excuse my thinking out loud, as my thoughts may not be as organized and coherent as usual while I think them out.

My first reaction is that when we talk about romance in a relationship, we're separating it from the companionate love elements. You can have a wonderful relationship with a partner that isn't romantic, I think, but feels more like a utilitarian partnership rather than lovers.

While I can feel a great deal of emotional intimacy with close friends, I do not consider my relationships with them to be romantic in any way. Even if I engaged in similar behaviours with them. So I think perhaps romance might be part of the lens that we look at things with, as opposed to an ingredient in itself. Very much, I think therefore I am. If it feels romantic, then it is.

I guess the stereotype for romance includes flowers and a candlelit dinner. I've had lovely candlelit dinners with friends, and if one went to that kind of effort to make me a special meal, I would appreciate it so much and it would definitely increase my emotional intimacy and platonic love feelings for them- but it wouldn't create any romance. The romance has to be coming from what's behind the actions, rather than the specific actions.

I also feel like romance has to be tied at least a little, to passion. One generally doesn't use that word with platonic friendships. I think romance has a heightened level of intensity that one generally doesn't experience in platonic love/relationships. I might love some friends dearly, but I'd never say I love them desperately, for example. There's that little bit more that I think comes along with romantic love.

Curious to hear others' thoughts.

kdt26417 said:

Re:


Reminds me of my first heavy-duty crush, in 7th Grade. She moved away and wow did I cry. I can empathize with what you went through, I feel bad about that.

One thing that confuses me about this whole romance (versus friendship) thing is, I have been with Snowbunny now for over twelve years, and I still consider my relationship with her to be romantic, but I don't know why. Is it because she and I still have sex? I don't think I could say I have a passionate desire for closeness with her, nor rapturous joy in her presence, nor even do I particularly miss her when she's away. So what does that leave? I feel that I must be missing something.

Click to expand...

Passionate love often--usually--eventually turns into "companionate" love. It's more a shift in degree than in kind, I suspect. The passion isn't usually sustained for decades. It can, but that is probably pretty rare. It's important, I think, not to mistake passion for love, per se. Love can be a gentle, warm glow or a hot, passionate fire. And it can oscillate between these two. But love is love is love, regardless -- however it manifests.

I totally love my partner / companion of more than two decades. Ours is a warm glow relationship at this time, not a blazing intensity. It's not less loving! In some respects, I suspect ours is a more loving relationship than most (or many) hot, passionate blazes.

Please don't think something is missing in your life just because you're not in a hot, flashy, blazing fire. Things cool off over time. Trust and connection deepens. Passion ebbs... and yet love grows. Or can. It takes sensitivity to feel the warm glow of love.

kdt26417 said:

I don't think I could say I have a passionate desire for closeness with her, nor rapturous joy in her presence, nor even do I particularly miss her when she's away. So what does that leave? I feel that I must be missing something.

Click to expand...

Few people can sustain a sensitivity or "vulnerability" for rapturous joy in what we might call "ordinary" conditions or situations. If one wants rapturous joy experiences, in general, one has got to either up the volume on the triggers or catalysers for such a state or increase one's sensitivity to that feeling state. Either will do. But I recommend the latter, since the former will tend to lead into an addictive cycle (call it suffering) and the former will gradually awaken or expand one's general capacity for joy and happiness.

One can increase one's capacity for rapturous joy by deliberately cultivating appreciation and enthusiasm. It's a matter of attention. What we pay attention to tends, gradually, to intensify the experience of just that. That is, we are sensitized through attention.

It's not the only way. Of course. But it works. Joy leads to more joy, in other words. Attend to joy more than to pain and dullness... and joy will likely increase, gradually. (That is, so long as one is not trying to hold pain at bay, which tends to increase rather than to decrease pain. As they say, "What you resist persists". Being open to pain is being open to feeling -- which is being open to joy.)

Attend mainly to that which is painful, and pain will tend to increase.

Another approach is disruption and interruption. That worked very powerfully for me when I left my familiar life behind with no plan and went and spent a week in the wilderness, in a very beautiful place, barefoot and wandering, rootless. The disruption of my life opened me up to rapturous joy, and an astounding shift in sensitivity. Oh. My. Gawd! Someone shared a bit of a Snickers bar ... and Wow! I had NEVER tasted a Snickers bar before! It was amplified a thousand percent! Suddenly I KNEW what people were talking about when they spoke rapturously about chocolate!

Then again, I was a wondering homeless nut ball at the time. I was even barefoot! I was crazed, and lost, and broken... open. I was broken open. One has got to be willing to be broken a little to be broken open.


Edit:


The question never ends. It's an endless question.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78311

Thanks for the ongoing thoughts, Vicki82 and River. It helps both illustrate my confusion and reduce it a little. River, I forgot about that other thread, thanks for pointing that out!

Re (from Vicki82):

"I also feel like romance has to be tied at least a little, to passion. One generally doesn't use that word with platonic friendships. I think romance has a heightened level of intensity that one generally doesn't experience in platonic love/relationships. I might love some friends dearly, but I'd never say I love them desperately, for example. There's that little bit more that I think comes along with romantic love."

Click to expand...

I am struck by the idea that romance has something to do with passion. The passion in my romantic relationship seems to have dwindled over the years, but perhaps not disappeared. I know I would be devastated if Snowbunny passed away. I selfishly hope I'll be the first to go. I guess it'd be better still if all three of us (including Brother-Husband) could go at the same time.

Is it just a matter of intensity? I can't find a way to justify more, but I feel like there is more (to it). I'll put it this way. What is the difference between romance and FWB? More specifically, what is romance that FWB is not? and what is FWB that romance is not? Why do I feel like I can readily recognize which is which, and yet I can't articulate the difference? I feel like romance (even asexual romance) is more sexual (or gender-related) than FWB, but I can't articulate how. And I am hesitant to put romance *above* FWB in any way, but it does seem to be more emotionally involved, don't you think?

I start to think of my relationship with Snowbunny and I think, "Well, we cohabit. We are highly committed to each other with entangled finances and living wills." But are those things that define romance (and set it apart)? I know plenty of people who are boyfriend/s and/or girlfriend/s with relatively casual relationships (separate domiciles, independent finances) who I would certainly consider romantic partners (not FWB), but again I can't articulate why. I seem to always come back to that same question: What's the difference (between romance and FWB ... or between romance and friendship generally)? Couldn't I call my relationship with Snowbunny a FWB relationship? Why do I (think I) know it's romantic? and why/how do I (think I) know it's not FWB?

I even struggle just to formulate my questions, it is hard for me to state what's confusing me. Maybe FWB is one kind of romance? Maybe my question is, how does FWB differ from, "not-FWB?" Maybe I mistitled the thread, maybe the title should be, "What Is FWB?"

kdt26417 said:

What is the difference between romance and FWB? More specifically, what is romance that FWB is not? and what is FWB that romance is not?

Click to expand...

Some FWB connections (I'll not say FWB 'relationships' to avoid unnecessary confusion, but I do think of all of these as relationships with a lower case r.) are 'romantic' in intent and some are not. Most are explicitly not, by design. But a few are.

The FWB arrangement is very diverse in intent and form. In some FWB arrangements, the entire plan or intent is NOT to form a significant emotional connection or bond. In others, the FWB arrangement is to allow for some such emotional connection and bond, but to attempt not to allow it to become "serious". The word "serious" must, I strongly suspect, be associated with what poly folks around here call "the relationship escalator". "Serious" means you're on an escalator and you're trying to move it up the escalator, in some sense or another. FWB arrangements tend to want to avoid this "escalator" altogether. But that doesn't mean that all FWB arrangements are without sincere human intimacy, connection and bonding -- even love. Affection.

Some FWB arrangements are considered to be "just fucking" or "just sex"... with no intent to connect or bond with the person/s involved. I, personally, can't relate to this sort of arrangement, 'cause for me regular or 'significant' physical intimacy always involves some connection, bonding, affection, etc.... Otherwise (from my frame of reference) "Why bother?" (One can substitute a sex toy or sex robot or some such inanimate object. Why involve an actual human being?) Please keep in mind that I'm in my early fifties. I'm not going out of my mind with hormones, youth and a perpetual erection in search of an orgasm. I've got a bit of grey in my hair and I'm not on fire looking for a fire hose or a swimming pool.

These days, what wants to be satisfied involves qualities of human connection and affection for me. So any FWB situation I'd get involved in MUST offer some of this. But it would not have to be on "the relationship escalator" to be satisfying. It WOULD have to involve some of what folks call "romance" -- even if that 'romance' is kept in check in some way, to some degree, so that it doesn't move into a realm neither party wants: such as toward monogamous marriage, or toward co-habitation, or whatever the boundary may be.

I'm not at all convinced that terms like "romance" and "FWB" have enough common social meaning for them to be serviceable as general terms not in need of explicit and careful definitions as provided by their participants.

As my signature says, or suggests, I've got a FWB on the more 'romantic' end of the spectrum in Albuquerque. But we don't talk a lot between visits (He's less into that than I'd be if he were into that). And while there is a degree of 'romance' between us, and some words of openness toward this from his side (and mine), I'm sort of doubting it will advance much in the direction of 'romance,' mostly because we live a fair distance apart and don't really get to see much of one another due to time constrains (more on his end than mine). He expresses enthusiasm about seeing me and being together, but ... It's limited. It's less 'romantic' that way. It's a bit sad for me, really. But life is what it is. One has to play the cards one is dealt.

What's the difference (between romance and FWB ... or between romance and friendship generally)? Couldn't I call my relationship with Snowbunny a FWB relationship? Why do I (think I) know it's romantic? and why/how do I (think I) know it's not FWB?

I even struggle just to formulate my questions, it is hard for me to state what's confusing me. Maybe FWB is one kind of romance? Maybe my question is, how does FWB differ from, "not-FWB?" Maybe I mistitled the thread, maybe the title should be, "What Is FWB?"

Click to expand...

In previous conversation on the question "What is a FWB?" in this very forum, the consensus that seemed to emerge is that there is no clear, simple demarcation between a FWB and a "romance" or "loving relationship". Instead, what the FWB arrangement amounts to is something on a very wide spectrum of types of relationship, with various factors contributing toward the boundary between a more "serious" or "involved' (or?!) relationship and a FWB.

I think the crucial thing I got from these conversations is that it's a spectrum, not a simple matter of either/or, this or that. FWB's can be very warm, loving, affectionate, even committed and involved -- but there is likely to be something (it can be various things) which causes the relationship to be slightly (or more) on the "casual" ... or at least "less devoted" or "less involved" or at least "not going anywhere very serious" (such as marriage, cohabitation, or whatever "serious" means to the folks involved.

One challenge here seems to be that we're trying (sometimes) to define things in all black or all white, which are in fact more of a grey area. There is simply no shared solid line between kinds here, and the boundary marker is ... simply put, vague. And that's not necessarily a bad thing! But it does mean people will have to work things out in honest communication with one another.

Oh... and... I have feelings and I have a right to feel disappointed or hurt if MY FWB is less 'romantically' interested in me than I may be in him. Or if he's less communicative, verbally, than I'd like him to be, etc.....

So going by what you're saying, it sounds like there is some crossover between FWB and romance. Like, some FWB is romantic, and some is not, am I understanding you correctly? It also sounds like you're saying that FWB does not have a single definition, it is a more complex topic than that. I suppose we can agree that FWB is always sexual to some extent. (Surely there could not be such a thing as asexual FWB, could there?)

I'm starting to think that romance doesn't have a single definition either. Like some romance is (at least partially) defined by frequently being in each other's company, but on the other hand there is such a thing as a romantic LDR, am I right? And some romance is (at least partially) defined by the relationship escalator, but again not all. I guess my next question is, are there any characteristics that can always be found in romance? any common components of definition, if you will? Vicki82 mentioned the stereotypical flowers and candlelit dinners. Which again seems to define some romance, but not all. Nor do these things always denote romance if they are present. (I don't know if the relationship escalator always denotes romance.)

What about "just" friendship (contrasted with FWB)? Does it never have a sexual (or gender-based) component? Can you be sexually attracted to your friends (who are not FWBs)? I guess so, you can always have a crush on someone even if it won't lead anywhere. So is romance what happens when the attraction is reciprocated? or what happens when it's reciprocated and when the two friends can act on it? or does reciprocation alone suffice to call it a romance?

Sorry about the avalanche of questions, as I said I'm actually kind of struggling to figure out what I'm asking.

kdt26417 said:

So going by what you're saying, it sounds like there is some crossover between FWB and romance. Like, some FWB is romantic, and some is not, am I understanding you correctly? It also sounds like you're saying that FWB does not have a single definition, it is a more complex topic than that. I suppose we can agree that FWB is always sexual to some extent. (Surely there could not be such a thing as asexual FWB, could there?)

I'm starting to think that romance doesn't have a single definition either. Like some romance is (at least partially) defined by frequently being in each other's company, but on the other hand there is such a thing as a romantic LDR, am I right? And some romance is (at least partially) defined by the relationship escalator, but again not all. I guess my next question is, are there any characteristics that can always be found in romance? any common components of definition, if you will? Vicki82 mentioned the stereotypical flowers and candlelit dinners. Which again seems to define some romance, but not all. Nor do these things always denote romance if they are present. (I don't know if the relationship escalator always denotes romance.)

What about "just" friendship (contrasted with FWB)? Does it never have a sexual (or gender-based) component? Can you be sexually attracted to your friends (who are not FWBs)? I guess so, you can always have a crush on someone even if it won't lead anywhere. So is romance what happens when the attraction is reciprocated? or what happens when it's reciprocated and when the two friends can act on it? or does reciprocation alone suffice to call it a romance?

Sorry about the avalanche of questions, as I said I'm actually kind of struggling to figure out what I'm asking.

Click to expand...

This whole exercise, while useful up to a point, feels as if it is going in circles. I don't think ANY of our terms have a universal definition, or will be pinned down by any single characteristic.

It's like tables and chairs. Most tables and chairs have four legs. Some have three. None that I've ever seen have one 'leg', per se. But some have just one pedestal. Some chairs are "bean bag chairs" (or some kindred), and have no legs or pedestals. Some tables have no legs or pedestals (!) because they resemble cubes, square or rectangular. Some are red. Some are blue. Some are made of wood. Some are made of metal... Some tables aren't cubes and have no legs or pedestal ... because their "top" extends from and is supported by a wall! On and on! So what is a table? What is a chair? It will depend a lot on who you're talking to. Some folks will sit on a rock or a log. Is it a bench or a chair? Some "tables" are actually shipping crates or boxes. On and on and on....

Maybe what we need here are broad categories with a lot of flexibility for getting more specific from there? But, oddly enough, I'm not sure I even care about names and labels all that much after thinking this stuff through and talking about it. What function or service do we want our label or name to serve? That seems to be the more interesting question!


I investigated the web in search of what people mean by FWB and discovered that the available definitions were nothing more than a matter of personal, idiosyncratic preference. So FWB is, at best, a starting place for a conversation about the sort of relationship folks might like to open themselves up for. Nothing more.

Likewise, "romance" seems to be mostly (if not entirely) in the eye of the beholder.

Curiously enough, though, a dog is always a dog and never a cat or a gorilla. A tree is never a chimpanzee. So language and naming are still somewhat functional. I guess.

So, I've been mulling over possible definitions, here is what I've come up with so far ...

• Romance: a relationship characterized by affection, passion, and mutual attraction.
• Friendship: a relationship characterized by affinity and esteem. Friends can be, but aren't necessarily, attracted to each other.

I'm not thrilled by those definitions, especially the one for friendship. But it's the best I could do for now in the context of this thread. I had to be vague/general because romance and friendship cover so much ground. If anyone has any better definitions for me, and is willing to post them here, I'd be much obliged. I'm sure I'll be thinking about it well after this thread's expiration date.

Okay, words.

Here's a guy saying that in this time of Facebook we've got more "friends" than our grandfather (who lived before Facebook) did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzECetUzB9I

Just consider this for a moment or two.

Interesting Ted talk -- thanks for posting.

I am "lucky" in that I don't have a smartphone, so I'm not "in my phone" all the time. I'm terrible on Facebook though, I "Like" way too many things. I think my number of Facebook friends is way below average though. Facebook games like Mafia Wars have really made people's number of "friends" ridiculous. A "friend" doesn't even have to be an acquaintance on Facebook.

I'm really bad about touch and eye contact too, even with my closest companions I tend to look elsewhere during a conversation. The internet has allowed us to become more detached in many ways. Even while allowing us to become more connected in other ways.

kdt26417 said:

The internet has allowed us to become more detached in many ways. Even while allowing us to become more connected in other ways.

Click to expand...

It's freaking extraordinary just how much personal computerized devices (PCDs) -- which include 'smart' cell phones, laptop computers, tablet computers and a dozen other kinds of devices -- have transformed our culture and world in the last two and a half decades!

There is a growing movement, recently, to keep these things out of some places -- including even coffee shops and cafes. Some coffee shops and cafes are saying, "Okay, enough already!" and are banning these devices from their premises -- at least for some of the hours of the day, if not all of them. I'm grateful for this decision on their part, and hope this banning will grow to such an extent that anyone can choose a coffee shop or a cafe on its basis. I'm old enough to remember the good old days when coffee shops and such were places of open social gathering, like a community living room, with a lots of openness to rich conversation between friends and acquaintances old and new. It is a sad loss that came in a wave when all the cool coffee houses got wifi and were taken over by screen-people.

Yeah most of my social life these days is on Facebook (and Polyamory.com, how ironic is that).

kdt26417 said:

Yeah most of my social life these days is on Facebook (and Polyamory.com, how ironic is that).

Click to expand...

This seems to be more and more the case with a lot of folks. What it leaves out, mainly, is bodily presence -- which is a LOT. Especially when we consider the importance of non-verbal cues in communication. Which is a LOT of what happens in communication. Like, a LOT.

Yeah, the absence of those non-verbal cues kind of forces us to pick out each word painstakingly. It's a minefield.

kdt26417 said:

Yeah, the absence of those non-verbal cues kind of forces us to pick out each word painstakingly. It's a minefield.

Click to expand...