8

Proposal: Sexuality

I was wondering where does the name changing leaves the "non-platonic relationship" part, since it's not specified anywhere, so one could think either it still is fully considered, only the part of a relationship involving sexuality or completely dropped

Edit:
This question goes mostly oriented to what will we do about the kind of questions that do happen to involve the non sexual part of a relationship

| |
8

It leaves it exactly where it started.

Platonic when used as an adjective describing love or friendship means intimate and affectionate but not sexual.

Non-platonic would therefore have to refer to something that is either not intimate and affectionate (an unlikely topic scope) or not-not sexual. Or in other words, sexual. That falls pretty squarely under "sexuality", so I don't think anything is being left out by the name change.

If you thought this site was going to cover the whole spectrum of human relations including those that would be "not intimate or affectionate" (Your boss? Teachers? Grocery store clerks?), I think you probably misunderstood the original proposal. This one has always been scoped to cover human sexuality. The fancy name was a euphemism -- linguistic monkey work to make the site title pronounceable in polite company.

| |
  • Copied from my comment on the name change discussion: I did take in consideration that, what i mean is that almost all (if not all) sexual relationships have a relationship part that is not sexual, and how will we deal with that – jclozano Jan 6 '12 at 17:01
  • Not (intimate and affectionate) : not intimate OR not affectionate. Bullying.area51 could match ! (linguistic monkeys ftw :) | @jclozano: That's relationships.area51, right ? It might get a wholly different audience, though. – Nikana Reklawyks Nov 20 '12 at 2:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .