Comment

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.

In conclusion, nice try cartoon cat, humans are unfortunately considerably more complicated than that.

source

Sort:hotnew top

untorquer@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
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?

source
- sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Lets hear what Professor Cat has to say.
    
    source
  - untorquer@quokk.au ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source