This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For example, Mary and John are friends and don't consider themselves to be "dating", "going-steady", or "romantically involved", yet they engage in activities traditionally regarded as being exclsive to couples. ie. Holding hands, kissing, and such.
I'd take issue with the last, at least - I would say that romantic friendship is by its very nature a very close friendship that is not sexual. Loganberry ( Talk) 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the concept of "romantic friendship" existed prior to 1900, which was an era during which the concept of sexuality as an identity did not exist.
— this is badly phrased, but I can't think of exactly how to change it. As it stands it seems to imply a) that "the concept of romantic friendship" only existed prior to 1900, and b) that "the concept of sexuality as an identity" has now directly replaced it, neither of which things is true. 86.132.140.139 03:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If this subject is to be taken seriously (and not with a lot of snickers), it would be good to improve the examples. While using Xenia and Gabrielle and Lenny and Carl will allow contemporary WP readers to understand romantic friendship, it would be better to have more than one historical example. Also, if romantic friendship is nonsexual, why is sex brought up in the Shakespeare, Lenny, and Batman examples? If the issue is that all same-sex romantic friendship are really latent homosexuality and that men and women really can't be friends, that needs to be address generally and not in each example. - Acjelen 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed an entire section from this article, as it was sourced from a crappy obscure website, and probably only here to advertise the website. Here is the text I removed, in case someone wants to do something with this:
According to the website celebratefriendship.com, a romantic friendship is not the same as latent homosexuality. The website says that romantic friendships have existed in civilizations both tolerant and intolerant of homosexuality, and therefore it seems unlikely that a romantic friendship is the same as homosexuality:
Romantic friendship is not the same thing as latent homosexuality. Romantic friendship has existed in both cultures that violently oppose homosexuality, as well as in cultures that openly accept it, and for that reason it seems unlikely that it is derived from repression of homosexual urges. Some pretty homophobic people, as well as some pretty gay people, have supported romantic friendship. For example, a Renaissance-era man might well be hateful of 'sodomites' but perfectly happy to snuggle with his best friend at night, as long as they didn’t have sex. [1]
The concept of "romantic friendship" existed prior to 1900, which was an era during which the concept of sexuality as an identity did not exist.
References
-- Xyzzyplugh 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The addition of this tag (by another editor) rather reinforces the last section of the discussion above. We can't simply have a heap of sections dealing with various "couples" who might or might not be examples of romantic friendship: we must have verifiable sources specifically mentioning that term. Without those, the example sections are in danger of deletion, possibly even by me! Loganberry ( Talk) 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Following on from the very interesting comment above... this section's title rather betrays how unsuitable it is for this article. Some reasons:
I'm actually quite close to putting the {{ rewrite}} tag on this, the one that suggests that a complete rewrite may be necessary.
Oh, and before I forget... the Coontz quote used in the article lead seems to me to be much too long to justify under fair use. A couple of sentences, yes, but two paragraphs? This could be cut down a lot pretty easily, I think. Loganberry ( Talk) 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The full phrase was, "Their continued inclusion in the Biblical canon also implies that more recent and typically anti- homosexual Christian leaders did not consider the verses offensive." The statement was not cited and betrays such a complete lack of understanding of the Biblical Canon that it can hardly be credible. LCP 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I re-wrote a small section of this page because it was poorly phrased. These are the adjustments I made:
Original:
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, but after that time its open expression generally became much rarer as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.
Re-Written:
Up until the second half of the 19th century, same-sex romantic friendships were considered common and unremarkable in the West, and were distinguished from the then-taboo homosexual relationships. But in the second half of the 19th century, expression of this nature became more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.
Grammatically, I feel that it now makes more sense. I am not so confident in the content. I did not adjust any of the actual content, but I am not sure that it makes sense and frankly am not sure that it is accurate. There should be clarity on the "physical intimacy" discussed. Did romantic friendships really become taboo because they were "regarded with anxiety"? If so, why did this anxiety suddenly occur in the second half of the 19th century? It is all very sketchy to me. If anyone can provide evidence to back this up, and fix this page, it would be much appreciated. I would like to add once more that the adjustments I made were merely grammatical adjustments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.98 ( talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
These two seem to be tangled up in each other, but I don't really see the connection. The "Romantic Friendship" is supposed to be discussing non-sexual friendships, which is not the same thing as homosexual relationships. Does anyone else share this opinion with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.98 ( talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I do. I think this should be expanded upon as well... 69.206.139.242 ( talk) 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Same...I tagged the article with a toofewopinions template, but I doubt it will do much...I wonder, I seem to recall this article and the one on platonic love having content that dealt with non homosexual relationships, but it appears to have vanished... Ks0stm ( T• C• G) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that "Romantic Friendship" is non-sexual? If you look at Rotundo's Essay "Romantic Friendship" you will see that he specifically says that it is impossible to tell whether genital intimacy was present or not. In fact, many scholars (John Ibson's Picturing Men and D'Emilio and Freedman's Intimate Matters) suggest that many of these romantic relationships at times crossed over into genital intimacy. The argument that they are non-sexual misses the fact that the spectre of sexuality did not yet exist, but was rather a social construction (see Foucault's History of Sexuality). It is highly problematic to try to separate out supposed genital contact from 19th century romantic friends. Phenophexadin ( talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention something about the now popular "bromance" (men who are very close to each other in the similar fashion this article describes)? Especially it's been coined to use with celebrities like Lance Armstrong and Matthew McConaughey and Ben Affleck and Matt Damon because they often hang out together. Even Cary Grant's close friendship with actor Randolph Scott drew rumors that they were gay. Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously this can't go into the actual article unless someone finds sources to back it up, but romantic friendships definitely still exist, just perhaps without "love letters" that can be used as verification. Someone else has mentioned the modern concept of the "bromance" on this page, but romantic friendships continue to occur between women as well. I am a women, and when I was in college (which was recent) my female friends and I regularly cuddled in each other's beds when relaxing or watching TV, made romantic/sexual comments to each other, and told each other "I Love you," and on our Facebook profiles we often listed ourselves as being in relationships (or even married) with each other, despite the fact that we were all totally straight. When I first heard about the concept of romantic friendships I immediately recognized this as very similar to the relationships among my female friends, and I know we were not unique. 99.148.203.156 ( talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
References
And Anne of Green Gables should be mentioned I think. It's a classic example of romantic friendship. Lucy herself had romantic friendships as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.21.58 ( talk) 06:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not mentioned here at all. Can anyone add an example of it (or replace it with one of the same-sex romantic friendship examples)? I don't know of any. 93.172.250.185 ( talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
These two should definitely be mentioned, as their relationship is a clear example of romantic friendship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.17.78 ( talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"romantic" and "non-sexual" is of course mutually exclusive, in the sense that "romantic love" implies sexual interest (even if it does not cumulate in a sexual act). This is no matter, even the most misguided terminology will enter Wikipedia if it is only notable. So what is the origin of the term? It appears to be Faderman (1981). This author single-handedly created this topic, and what we are discussing is simply its reception by later commentators. This also explains why the article is tagged for "WikiProject LGBT studies", a little surprising considering its claimed "non-sexual" nature. So this is a non-sexual topic of a clearly homosexual nature, then?
The problen is that a "romantic friendship" is supposed to be simply a close friendship of non-sexual nature, including certain types of physical contact that would be considered sexual by other people. It boils down to cultural differences in interpreting physical contact, and "romantic friendship" can only ever describe a type of friendship as observed by somebody else across a cultural boundary. Thus the term has no objective reality at all and simply serves as a handle to discuss changing cultural conventions, it does not describe any well-defined type of friendship. In the end, the article is frank enough to admit that the concept of "romantic friendship" is simply coined in order to advocate "the social constructionist view that sexual orientation is a modern, culturally constructed concept". I have no problem with that, as long as the nature of the term is made explicit. We are not talking about a special type of friendship, we are here talking about 1980s to 1990s efforts in the US "LBGT" subculture to push one specific brand of "social constructionist" agenda, no more, no less.
As the article in its current revision is broken anyway, I suggest it would be best to just turn it into a page about Faderman's book explicitly (since that what it is in any case), or perhaps (failing relevant material once we drop the quotefarm) just merge it into Faderman's bio article, as the concept of "romantic friendship" seems to be her main claim to notability anyway. -- dab (𒁳) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Any friendship between two sexes (including kinship, sibling) may be very close but non-sexual relationship and include holding hands, hugging, kissing, and sharing a bed, so maybe we need to clarify what is romantic one? Roma.rr ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the introduction is comprised of possibly the most poorly written sentence I've ever read on Wikipedia. I am not sure where to start wi this abomination, so I am pasting it here in the hope that someone can fix it. (Feel free to delete this note once it is fixed.) "The term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid 19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.1.91 ( talk) 03:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, new guy here, just curious - exactly whom are "Janeth and Selma?" I can't seem to find any reference to them in the article, what do they have to do with any of this? AnyyVen ( talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with questions brought up by editors dab (2013) and Roma.rr. More specifically, at no point is any effort made to define the key word ROMANTIC. Only at the end is a "see also" offered to Romance (love). Bad enough that Romance (love) cannot seem to distinguish concepts such as feelings of love from courtship, the latter being much closer to common modern usage.
And for all the effort made to put "romantic friendship" in a modern context, the article itself blithely opens with the term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship … during a period of history when homosexuality did not exist as a social category. Choose one, or the other, or hang a lantern on it and explain the discrepancy — without ONE of those choices, I'd say the article's existence is questionable at best.
Where is mention of chivalric love?
Romance (love) happily states Researchers have determined that romantic love is a complex emotion that can be divided into either passionate or companionate forms. Search for companionate love and you wind up at Triangular theory of love which says
I do not see where a strong case has been made that "romantic friendship" is anything but "companionate love" with a new label to claim "originality." Other than justifying someone's pet theory, I cannot see why this article shouldn't be merged.
It's kinda like making sausage: when you realize the lard is outpacing the meat, then cramming in more lard is very poor strategy for disguising the error. Mere bulk does not add substance.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
23:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Firejuggler86 ( talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.
Thanks in advance.
Bookku ( talk) 05:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Am I the only one confused by this moment? This is added as the opinion of an authoritative source and has a link, but to be honest, this is the first time I hear ideas that jealousy or longing cannot be platonic. Moreover, even in our time, the media, from Western to Asian, openly show the experience of jealousy and longing in an asexual-platonic friendship as something normal. Of course, not so ardently given the 21st century in the yard, but still. For example, the Japanese concept of romantic friendship explicitly includes the so-called "passionate friendship" attraction, and anime inspired by it like Maria-sama is watching us or in the male version, Tsurune, explicitly discusses romantic allusions in friendship between people of the same sex. So, does anyone know of a more varied study of jealousy and longing in academic sources? Solaire the knight ( talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
literally all of the examples on the page are about white men when these are arguably the most well-known example of romantic friendships. 110.174.42.222 ( talk) 05:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For example, Mary and John are friends and don't consider themselves to be "dating", "going-steady", or "romantically involved", yet they engage in activities traditionally regarded as being exclsive to couples. ie. Holding hands, kissing, and such.
I'd take issue with the last, at least - I would say that romantic friendship is by its very nature a very close friendship that is not sexual. Loganberry ( Talk) 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the concept of "romantic friendship" existed prior to 1900, which was an era during which the concept of sexuality as an identity did not exist.
— this is badly phrased, but I can't think of exactly how to change it. As it stands it seems to imply a) that "the concept of romantic friendship" only existed prior to 1900, and b) that "the concept of sexuality as an identity" has now directly replaced it, neither of which things is true. 86.132.140.139 03:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If this subject is to be taken seriously (and not with a lot of snickers), it would be good to improve the examples. While using Xenia and Gabrielle and Lenny and Carl will allow contemporary WP readers to understand romantic friendship, it would be better to have more than one historical example. Also, if romantic friendship is nonsexual, why is sex brought up in the Shakespeare, Lenny, and Batman examples? If the issue is that all same-sex romantic friendship are really latent homosexuality and that men and women really can't be friends, that needs to be address generally and not in each example. - Acjelen 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed an entire section from this article, as it was sourced from a crappy obscure website, and probably only here to advertise the website. Here is the text I removed, in case someone wants to do something with this:
According to the website celebratefriendship.com, a romantic friendship is not the same as latent homosexuality. The website says that romantic friendships have existed in civilizations both tolerant and intolerant of homosexuality, and therefore it seems unlikely that a romantic friendship is the same as homosexuality:
Romantic friendship is not the same thing as latent homosexuality. Romantic friendship has existed in both cultures that violently oppose homosexuality, as well as in cultures that openly accept it, and for that reason it seems unlikely that it is derived from repression of homosexual urges. Some pretty homophobic people, as well as some pretty gay people, have supported romantic friendship. For example, a Renaissance-era man might well be hateful of 'sodomites' but perfectly happy to snuggle with his best friend at night, as long as they didn’t have sex. [1]
The concept of "romantic friendship" existed prior to 1900, which was an era during which the concept of sexuality as an identity did not exist.
References
-- Xyzzyplugh 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The addition of this tag (by another editor) rather reinforces the last section of the discussion above. We can't simply have a heap of sections dealing with various "couples" who might or might not be examples of romantic friendship: we must have verifiable sources specifically mentioning that term. Without those, the example sections are in danger of deletion, possibly even by me! Loganberry ( Talk) 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Following on from the very interesting comment above... this section's title rather betrays how unsuitable it is for this article. Some reasons:
I'm actually quite close to putting the {{ rewrite}} tag on this, the one that suggests that a complete rewrite may be necessary.
Oh, and before I forget... the Coontz quote used in the article lead seems to me to be much too long to justify under fair use. A couple of sentences, yes, but two paragraphs? This could be cut down a lot pretty easily, I think. Loganberry ( Talk) 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The full phrase was, "Their continued inclusion in the Biblical canon also implies that more recent and typically anti- homosexual Christian leaders did not consider the verses offensive." The statement was not cited and betrays such a complete lack of understanding of the Biblical Canon that it can hardly be credible. LCP 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I re-wrote a small section of this page because it was poorly phrased. These are the adjustments I made:
Original:
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, but after that time its open expression generally became much rarer as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.
Re-Written:
Up until the second half of the 19th century, same-sex romantic friendships were considered common and unremarkable in the West, and were distinguished from the then-taboo homosexual relationships. But in the second half of the 19th century, expression of this nature became more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.
Grammatically, I feel that it now makes more sense. I am not so confident in the content. I did not adjust any of the actual content, but I am not sure that it makes sense and frankly am not sure that it is accurate. There should be clarity on the "physical intimacy" discussed. Did romantic friendships really become taboo because they were "regarded with anxiety"? If so, why did this anxiety suddenly occur in the second half of the 19th century? It is all very sketchy to me. If anyone can provide evidence to back this up, and fix this page, it would be much appreciated. I would like to add once more that the adjustments I made were merely grammatical adjustments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.98 ( talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
These two seem to be tangled up in each other, but I don't really see the connection. The "Romantic Friendship" is supposed to be discussing non-sexual friendships, which is not the same thing as homosexual relationships. Does anyone else share this opinion with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.98 ( talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I do. I think this should be expanded upon as well... 69.206.139.242 ( talk) 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Same...I tagged the article with a toofewopinions template, but I doubt it will do much...I wonder, I seem to recall this article and the one on platonic love having content that dealt with non homosexual relationships, but it appears to have vanished... Ks0stm ( T• C• G) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that "Romantic Friendship" is non-sexual? If you look at Rotundo's Essay "Romantic Friendship" you will see that he specifically says that it is impossible to tell whether genital intimacy was present or not. In fact, many scholars (John Ibson's Picturing Men and D'Emilio and Freedman's Intimate Matters) suggest that many of these romantic relationships at times crossed over into genital intimacy. The argument that they are non-sexual misses the fact that the spectre of sexuality did not yet exist, but was rather a social construction (see Foucault's History of Sexuality). It is highly problematic to try to separate out supposed genital contact from 19th century romantic friends. Phenophexadin ( talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention something about the now popular "bromance" (men who are very close to each other in the similar fashion this article describes)? Especially it's been coined to use with celebrities like Lance Armstrong and Matthew McConaughey and Ben Affleck and Matt Damon because they often hang out together. Even Cary Grant's close friendship with actor Randolph Scott drew rumors that they were gay. Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously this can't go into the actual article unless someone finds sources to back it up, but romantic friendships definitely still exist, just perhaps without "love letters" that can be used as verification. Someone else has mentioned the modern concept of the "bromance" on this page, but romantic friendships continue to occur between women as well. I am a women, and when I was in college (which was recent) my female friends and I regularly cuddled in each other's beds when relaxing or watching TV, made romantic/sexual comments to each other, and told each other "I Love you," and on our Facebook profiles we often listed ourselves as being in relationships (or even married) with each other, despite the fact that we were all totally straight. When I first heard about the concept of romantic friendships I immediately recognized this as very similar to the relationships among my female friends, and I know we were not unique. 99.148.203.156 ( talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
References
And Anne of Green Gables should be mentioned I think. It's a classic example of romantic friendship. Lucy herself had romantic friendships as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.21.58 ( talk) 06:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not mentioned here at all. Can anyone add an example of it (or replace it with one of the same-sex romantic friendship examples)? I don't know of any. 93.172.250.185 ( talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
These two should definitely be mentioned, as their relationship is a clear example of romantic friendship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.17.78 ( talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"romantic" and "non-sexual" is of course mutually exclusive, in the sense that "romantic love" implies sexual interest (even if it does not cumulate in a sexual act). This is no matter, even the most misguided terminology will enter Wikipedia if it is only notable. So what is the origin of the term? It appears to be Faderman (1981). This author single-handedly created this topic, and what we are discussing is simply its reception by later commentators. This also explains why the article is tagged for "WikiProject LGBT studies", a little surprising considering its claimed "non-sexual" nature. So this is a non-sexual topic of a clearly homosexual nature, then?
The problen is that a "romantic friendship" is supposed to be simply a close friendship of non-sexual nature, including certain types of physical contact that would be considered sexual by other people. It boils down to cultural differences in interpreting physical contact, and "romantic friendship" can only ever describe a type of friendship as observed by somebody else across a cultural boundary. Thus the term has no objective reality at all and simply serves as a handle to discuss changing cultural conventions, it does not describe any well-defined type of friendship. In the end, the article is frank enough to admit that the concept of "romantic friendship" is simply coined in order to advocate "the social constructionist view that sexual orientation is a modern, culturally constructed concept". I have no problem with that, as long as the nature of the term is made explicit. We are not talking about a special type of friendship, we are here talking about 1980s to 1990s efforts in the US "LBGT" subculture to push one specific brand of "social constructionist" agenda, no more, no less.
As the article in its current revision is broken anyway, I suggest it would be best to just turn it into a page about Faderman's book explicitly (since that what it is in any case), or perhaps (failing relevant material once we drop the quotefarm) just merge it into Faderman's bio article, as the concept of "romantic friendship" seems to be her main claim to notability anyway. -- dab (𒁳) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Any friendship between two sexes (including kinship, sibling) may be very close but non-sexual relationship and include holding hands, hugging, kissing, and sharing a bed, so maybe we need to clarify what is romantic one? Roma.rr ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the introduction is comprised of possibly the most poorly written sentence I've ever read on Wikipedia. I am not sure where to start wi this abomination, so I am pasting it here in the hope that someone can fix it. (Feel free to delete this note once it is fixed.) "The term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid 19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.1.91 ( talk) 03:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, new guy here, just curious - exactly whom are "Janeth and Selma?" I can't seem to find any reference to them in the article, what do they have to do with any of this? AnyyVen ( talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with questions brought up by editors dab (2013) and Roma.rr. More specifically, at no point is any effort made to define the key word ROMANTIC. Only at the end is a "see also" offered to Romance (love). Bad enough that Romance (love) cannot seem to distinguish concepts such as feelings of love from courtship, the latter being much closer to common modern usage.
And for all the effort made to put "romantic friendship" in a modern context, the article itself blithely opens with the term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship … during a period of history when homosexuality did not exist as a social category. Choose one, or the other, or hang a lantern on it and explain the discrepancy — without ONE of those choices, I'd say the article's existence is questionable at best.
Where is mention of chivalric love?
Romance (love) happily states Researchers have determined that romantic love is a complex emotion that can be divided into either passionate or companionate forms. Search for companionate love and you wind up at Triangular theory of love which says
I do not see where a strong case has been made that "romantic friendship" is anything but "companionate love" with a new label to claim "originality." Other than justifying someone's pet theory, I cannot see why this article shouldn't be merged.
It's kinda like making sausage: when you realize the lard is outpacing the meat, then cramming in more lard is very poor strategy for disguising the error. Mere bulk does not add substance.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
23:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Firejuggler86 ( talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.
Thanks in advance.
Bookku ( talk) 05:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Am I the only one confused by this moment? This is added as the opinion of an authoritative source and has a link, but to be honest, this is the first time I hear ideas that jealousy or longing cannot be platonic. Moreover, even in our time, the media, from Western to Asian, openly show the experience of jealousy and longing in an asexual-platonic friendship as something normal. Of course, not so ardently given the 21st century in the yard, but still. For example, the Japanese concept of romantic friendship explicitly includes the so-called "passionate friendship" attraction, and anime inspired by it like Maria-sama is watching us or in the male version, Tsurune, explicitly discusses romantic allusions in friendship between people of the same sex. So, does anyone know of a more varied study of jealousy and longing in academic sources? Solaire the knight ( talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
literally all of the examples on the page are about white men when these are arguably the most well-known example of romantic friendships. 110.174.42.222 ( talk) 05:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)