Good, but realize there are two people, each with their own idea of which part of this diagram applies to their relationship with the other person.
P1: Love + Sex
P2: Friendship + Sex
Situationship?
P1: Love + Friendship + Sex
P2: Friendship + Sex
Unrequited Romantic Love for P1.
‘Its not that serious’ for P2.
And then this gets even more complicated when you try to account for just sexual attraction, desire to have sex with the other, but not having actually had sex yet, as a variable for both parties.
P1: Friendship
P2: Love + Desire for Sex
Clueless ‘Friend’ for P1
Limerence/Infatuation for P2
P1: Friendship + Love
P2: Friendship + Love + Desire for Sex
… Greek Tragedy.
And and, this is just for monogamous couples or pairings and doesn’t well describe polyamory, cucks, cheaters, swingers, etc.
And and and, as Macchi the Slime points out, this also is inadequate to describe asexuals aces, for whom both P1 and P2 sharing Friendship and Love constitutes a full couple relationship, potentially a perfect match, or where an ace paired with a non ace can follow different dynamics/rules.
And and and and… people habe different definitions of what constitutes ‘Friendship’ and ‘Love’, and, those definitions may change overtime, and, people may change whether or not they consider the other person a Friend or a Lover as time goes on.
In conclusion, nice try cartoon cat, humans are unfortunately considerably more complicated than that.
But you just used it as a tool to categorize and explain a wide swath of relationship dynamics. The only thing you needed was to apply it to the individuals instead of the relationship writ large.
I think the cat is in the middle of a lecture too. Maybe that’s the next slide?
I guess my point is that this is but a stepping stone to perhaps a better systemic way of trying to understand things…
… or, perhaps the fact that you have to keep complexifying and expanding on the original concept and giving it caveats and special cases… means that some other kind of fundamental approach would be superior.
I think the best way might be the simplest way that achieves a consensus that sufficient nuance is considered.
Or rather, the minimum necessary that everyone affected can use the tool proficiently to meet their needs. Most tools need regular maintenance or discarding, but cat is giving simple, so maybe cat is on to something.
Good, but realize there are two people, each with their own idea of which part of this diagram applies to their relationship with the other person.
And then this gets even more complicated when you try to account for just sexual attraction, desire to have sex with the other, but not having actually had sex yet, as a variable for both parties.
And and, this is just for monogamous couples or pairings and doesn’t well describe polyamory, cucks, cheaters, swingers, etc.
And and and, as Macchi the Slime points out, this also is inadequate to describe asexuals aces, for whom both P1 and P2 sharing Friendship and Love constitutes a full couple relationship, potentially a perfect match, or where an ace paired with a non ace can follow different dynamics/rules.
And and and and… people habe different definitions of what constitutes ‘Friendship’ and ‘Love’, and, those definitions may change overtime, and, people may change whether or not they consider the other person a Friend or a Lover as time goes on.
In conclusion, nice try cartoon cat, humans are unfortunately considerably more complicated than that.
But you just used it as a tool to categorize and explain a wide swath of relationship dynamics. The only thing you needed was to apply it to the individuals instead of the relationship writ large.
I think the cat is in the middle of a lecture too. Maybe that’s the next slide?
I guess my point is that this is but a stepping stone to perhaps a better systemic way of trying to understand things…
… or, perhaps the fact that you have to keep complexifying and expanding on the original concept and giving it caveats and special cases… means that some other kind of fundamental approach would be superior.
I think the best way might be the simplest way that achieves a consensus that sufficient nuance is considered.
Or rather, the minimum necessary that everyone affected can use the tool proficiently to meet their needs. Most tools need regular maintenance or discarding, but cat is giving simple, so maybe cat is on to something.
Lets hear what Professor Cat has to say.