Talk:Intimate relationship/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

illogic

The second sentence presently reads

Physical intimacy is characterized by friendship, platonic love, romantic love, or sexual activity.

Clearly, I need to see this parsed out word-by-word, because I cannot make sense of it.

For starters, how is it that

FRIENDSHIP = PHYSICAL INTIMACY

or perhaps more accurately

FRIENDSHIP <=> PHYSICAL INTIMACY

Nowhere in the article body do I see the case made (much less substantiated) that one leads to (or indicates the presence of) the other, much less that they are interchangeable, which seems to be implied.

(As I've already mentioned, the case might be aided by reference to propinquity or proxemics, but neither word appears in the article, so I see further good reason to question whether contributors here are simply pasting in whatever random bits they haven't forgotten from Sociology 1-02.)

And then there's

ROMANTIC LOVE = PHYSICAL INTIMACY

and the somewhat bizarre

PLATONIC LOVE = PHYSICAL INTIMACY

that need to be supported. Without that explanation, I challenge the second sentence, and expect that its restoration will include an EXPLICIT citation to a credible source, not just some Pecksniffian hanky-wave toward the article. Lacking that, I have cause to suspect synthesis, maybe original research. In the end, WP:PROVEIT clearly says

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

and

Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

and

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

I would have settled for a credible rewrite, but now I think it's best all-round to expect chapter-&-verse to rule. Letter of the law and all that.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not see the "Physical intimacy is characterized by friendship, platonic love, romantic love, or sexual activity" wording as unclear. By "characterized" the sentence means "involves" or "includes." The sentence is speaking of a range. The sentence is not stating that all friendships are characterized by physical intimacy. After all, people can be online friends, which is not a physical relationship. The sentence is not stating that romantic love automatically equates to physical intimacy either. It usually involves it, however. Anyway, as seen with this edit, I changed the text to "Physical intimacy is characterized by romantic love, sexual activity, or other passionate attachment" and moved it. It is supported by this 2014 "Counseling Individuals Through the Lifespan source, from Sage Publications, page 326. The family and friendship aspects are now covered elsewhere in the lead. I would have used this 2018 "Threescore and More: Applying the Assets of Maturity, Wisdom, and Experience for Personal and Professional Success" source, from Routledge, page 159, but it clearly copied the lead of the Wikipedia article. Sources are always plagiarizing Wikipedia. The "Counseling Individuals Through the Lifespan" source also appears to have copied Wikipedia's first sentence of this article, but since that wording or similar can be found in different sources defining "intimate relationship," and the source's second sentence is not worded exactly like the Wikipedia article's second sentence was worded, I used the source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

interesting bias

The article makes repeated reference to how an intimate relationship is pretty much the same thing as a couple. But Couple brings you right back here, as does Couplehood. Anyone else familiar with the concept tautology? While there's nothing inherently evil with using word A to define word B and word B to define word A, it flies directly against the entire point of a reference work, such as W'pedia. So, as I've pointed out elsewhere, examples such as

• "Faithfulness is the concept of unfailingly remaining loyal…"
• "Loyalty is a devotion and faithfulness…"
• "Fidelity is the quality of faithfulness or loyalty."

ought to be rooted diligently out.

But when an article refers to itself in order to rationalise its own existence, then the entire article should be called to question and considered for severe sanction, up to and including removal. Acting toward moderation, I will simply remove the nonsense as cleanly as possible.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is not just about couples. And since Couple is a disambiguation page, it's supposed to point to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And that's another flag that this article doesn't measure up beyond freshman level (if that). There is small-but-significant difference between a couple and a dyad — I've read Georg Simmel. For starters, the notion couplehood has been infected by American romantic nonsense about inherent symmetry and balance and equality, while dyad remains aware how difficult it is to achieve that ideal with two unique and idiosyncratic beings, and that many stable-seeming two-person games have a clearly dominant member, and conversely how often a well-balanced pair is constantly on the verge of dissolution.

My texts went away decades ago or I'd gladly offer citations. Still, I'm not enough a scholar to create those thoughts myself, so I likely stole it from elsewhere. But I will contribute the POV that the article has a couplist bias, which supports monogamism (the belief that humans are naturally monogamous-unto-death, and any variance is deviant or worse).

As to specifics,

1. Couple is a disambiguation page but Couple (relationship) fetches up at Intimate relationship. Sorry for the complexity.
2. This article is not just about couples. A quick browse says the only relationships mentioned are two-player games — how is that NOT all about couples?

Having browsed, I see sections that ought to be removed outright. Good show.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to intimate relationships, sources usually talk about couples or a relationship between two people that is not romantic and/or sexual (like a mother and her child). Monogamy is how the vast majority of society thinks/works in terms of romantic and/or sexual pairings. That is why marriage is mostly about two people/a couple. We are not here to challenge this view because of a perception that it is wrong. We are here to follow the literature with due weight. We wouldn't go to the Marriage article and try to make it as much about polygamy as it is about the union of two people. That's false balance. Similarly, we should not be trying to make this article as much about polyamory as it is about romantic and/or sexual couples.

All that stated, the article is not solely about couples, which is why the "Empirical research" section addresses a study conducted that examined the traits and habits of children in selecting a friend. It's why the "Current studies" section addresses studying intimate relationships in terms of diverse groups, and that includes family relations, friendships, and romantic relationships. More can be added to the article on non-couples. And we can see that this 2011 "Intimate Relationships, Marriages, and Families" source, from McGraw-Hill Higher Education, page 6, addresses polygamous families with regard to intimate relationships. And as for redirects, also keep in mind that "intimacy" redirects to the Intimate relationship article.

Regarding sections that should be removed outright, you blanked out a section and I went ahead and removed it with this edit that tweaked, cut and sourced parts of the article. I'm not seeing any other section that needs to be dropped. Commentary from me about sourcing is below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And we should remember the WP:Preserve policy, which states, in part, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)