Talk:Intimate relationship/Archive 2

START OF PROPOSED NEW SECTION - PROPOSED TEXT

Universal themes This section lists the universal themes from relationship books, all of the themes in this list appear in all of the books. These universal themes are: Love, kindness, bonding, intimacy, communication, attachment, cheerfulness, reflectiveness and parenting.

END OF PROPOSED NEW SECTION

Approach taken to distilling the list
Using a syntopical reading approach to those secondary sources a list of the themes has been distilled with links to further references, from the most notable relationship books.

VisitingPhilosopher (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy adherence notes
As a new editor on Wikipedia, I have tried to show below how this new section (text above) adheres to the Wikipedia policies which I have read. Please let me know if there are any relevant policies which I have missed. Please let me know if more detail is required in any of the policy adherence notes for this new section I am proposing to add. See the table and following sections.

Policies adhered to: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG

Themes verifiability
Policy adherence notes: relationship books, all of the themes in this list appear in all of the books.

Policy adherence notes: Kindness: In surveys, when people are asked what they most desire from their intimate relationship, kindness appears as a highly prized trait sought for in a partner.

Policy adherence notes: Reflectiveness: Several terms exist for this thinking skill -
 * * "mentalization" - Peter Fonagy
 * * "meta-cognition" - Mary Main
 * * Six Thinking Hats "blue hat" - Edward De Bono
 * * "Reflective practice" - Donald Schön
 * * "Psychologically minded"
 * * "Psychological flexibility" - A.C.T.
 * "The whole idea of thinking about thinking is that we learn about ourselves through being understood by other people. Babies learn about their feelings by having their feelings understood by someone else." ~ David Wallin

Themes howto
Policy adherence notes: This section does not contain howto advice. For "how-to" guides on this subject, see [Wikihow:Maintaining-Relationships].

Themes originality
Policy adherence notes: No original research. References provided.

Any feedback? let me know, thanks. VisitingPhilosopher (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

On June 12th the paragraph was "tidied"

 * An edit by Andrewaskew in the link below.


 * link to edit history


 * I believe the tidying-edit detracts from the article, and the reasons above are sufficient to re-instate the paragraph.  ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 11:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I find it a bit unbelievable that the discussion of the history of affective relationships skips from Aristotle to the 19th c....that's a study worth summarizing for someone, somewhere. Not me, not now, although the work I'm doing on medieval dance iconography w/re/to handholding positions in group dances led me to do some work on it, but is there really no discussion possible between the two bookends as they appear here?108.20.41.15 (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The section on Different Terms and Types of Intimate Relationships needs a LOT of work. Bobgilmore43 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole explanation of the meaning of an "intimate relationship" is lacking and meaningless as presented. To present in some detail the work with children and youth and suggest the link with adult romance and intimacy seems to be totally misplaced in this type of a discussion. The author speaks a lot about the importance of empirical studies and has a foundation that is nothing but sand for the conclusions the article makes. This article should be flagged as significantly deficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.69 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Intimate relationships in ancient Greece
It's supposed that the so called "Platonic love" was not as most think today when hearing the word, an spiritual love with no participation of the physical parts or expressions of feelings, that as address very deep parts in our minds are so strong in effects that are close to limiting freedom, but "Platonic" probably referred to "Erastia", the homosexual bond between teacher and student that is cited in classical texts, for example some regret that in contrary to what happened in the old times, when Erastia was limited to one person to other, people started having multiple relationships, and students offered themselves to teachers in a too open and obscene way. Any kind of body contact is always close to sex, and as it triggers old parts of brain, from a phylogenetic point of view, it can be good to restrict it and limit it to the relationships where it can reach an stronger degree, and give more affection and pleasure: the couple relationships.--Jgrosay (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does paramour redirect here?
Two distinct things should not be Implied to be the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.228 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that it currently redirects here because the term refers to a type of intimate relationship -- a sexual one; lovers. Alternatively, it would be fine to redirect it the Lover page, but that is a disambiguation page. So a better fit than that page would be the second definition it lists for "lover" -- a sexual partner. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, since the term especially refers to an illicit lover/adulterous relationship, one could argue that it might be better to redirect it to the Adultery article; that redirect wouldn't be considered neutral by some people, however, since the term does not only refer to adultery. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked up paramour on wikipedia to get a better understanding of the history behind adulterous relationships. While this article on Intimate relationship is nice, it is disingenuous to link paramour here, as there is no discussion of the topic here. This is not what I expect from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.29.41 (talk • contribs)

Citation needed or to be made clearer
I want to quote C.colombus's on "Genuine intimacy in human relationships requires dialogue, transparency, vulnerability and reciprocity," but I found his/her references insufficient. The closest citation used in "This was clarified by Dalton (1959) who discusses how anthropologists and ethnographic researchers access 'inside information' from within a particular cultural setting by establishing networks of intimates capable (and willing) to provide information unobtainable through formal channels" makes it unclear if the first definition is derived solely from that M. Dalton's book Men who Manage or from other sources. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intimate_relationship&diff=348462602&oldid=348148340 Airelor (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
removed an image that HeliumPearl added. As seen with this edit, HeliumPearl re-added the image and I removed it. As noted in my edit summary, I removed it because this article is not solely about sexual intimacy. So having that image in the lead makes it seem as though this article is mainly or primarily about sexual intimacy. The image also is not needed and clearly violates WP:GRATUITOUS. It is a foursome image that is not needed in the least to help readers understand what an intimate relationship is.

HeliumPearl has been making poor choices when it comes to lead material, as seen when he got into a dispute with Meters at the Love article and in a dispute with me and others at the Man article. HeliumPearl, I ask that you think your edits through more carefully and stop WP:Edit warring over matters such as these. Take the time to actually listen to the objections instead of having your say and reverting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks!HeliumPearl (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intimate relationship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902084830/http://www.asanet.org/am2011/programschedule.cfm to http://www.asanet.org/am2011/programschedule.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213165744/http://www.utexas.edu/research/pair/ to http://www.utexas.edu/research/pair/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

poor definitions throughout
Clearly, you all have intimate relationships with your parents.

And you have intimate relationships with your children.

And possibly your co-workers.

It ought to be CLEARLY spelled out how any non-negative regular interaction with another human being IS NOT an "intimate relationship," at least for purposes of an encyclopedaic article. After that, it ought to be CLEARLY spelled out how feeling some vague sort of positive affection for someone IS NOT automatically an "intimate relationship," and as well how an imperfect or even antagonostic relationship can be intimate.

Until then, this article is on shaky ground. Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you arguing and with what sources? And as for this, it's not necessarily true that every sentence needs a source. See WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, do I need to raise the issue of you stalking me all across Wikipedia? Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. And, oh, by the way, Polyamory has been on my watchlist for years as well. But since I have such little interest in that topic and all the POV-pushing that goes on at that article, I haven't yet popped up there to address you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the creepy behavior…
 * I am not picking nits, as insinuated ("it's not necessarily true that every sentence needs a source').
 * Rather, the article rests on a fundamental premise that is
 * poorly presented
 * badly defined
 * composed of multiple types that overlap and commingle
 * and (now clearly) defended as being common sense of the "fire is hot" sort (though actually closer to "Big Brother loves you")
 * For starters, I will get around to reworking the Current studies section. From the heading on, this is largely essay. Half the section depends entirely on one source. That source was published 2008. The most recent publication cited in the section was 2013. All claims to currency are therefore wrong.
 * As well, unless someone can make a case why History is buried, I might attempt to move this closer to the beginning. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I have been watching all of these article for years, there is no creepy behavior to set aside in reference to me. As I've told you before, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. You keep going by personal opinions. And as for "it's not necessarily true that every sentence needs a source," I suggest you read WP:Citation overkill. I stated nothing of common sense. I certainly know what I'm talking about. If I see any problems with your edits to this article, I will either revert you and likely source the material or change the material in some other way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There are "editors" hereabouts that push personal opinion, empty conjecture, popular nonsense, and "common sense," then blithely claim it's objective truth. (e.g., Dating or Love at first sight) If I browse an article, and it's full of glaring logical gaps, I fully intend to point these up, and I do not feel at all obligated to "fix" them — Wikipedia IS NOT a debating society. When someone says something on the order of "the Martians brought whales to Earth in 1691," my role is NOT to provide a countercase, but to look into the source for the claim (if any) and to remove the claim if it's untenable.


 * I'll civilly pretend that the I will revert you isn't targeted harassment. (I will also overlook any sock-puppet accounts you might have sprouted.) But I remain curious how it is that you've been "watching this article for years" much as you have been watching at least eight other articles I merely happened to edit. Rather than having one beady eye locked on my activities, perhaps you could actually do some proper editing while you're lurking about — if we've crossed paths, it's because the articles are awful.


 * Note that this Talk section is entitled poor definitions throughout, an opinion with which you have taken issue. Stop emptily claiming I'm wrong. Here; turn your talents to a simple one that opens Intimate relationship:
 * These relationships involve feelings of liking or loving one or more people
 * All you have to do is provide a clear definition of liking. The word appears in the lede, and never reappears; clearly, I'm in the right to remove it entirely. I look forward to how you save it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not speak to me about civility and targeted harassment when you are going on with idiotic, uncivil and harassing claims, such as "Setting aside the creepy behavior." and are now stating that I likely have sockpuppets because, like others, you apparently can't read my block log appropriately. If anyone should be taken to WP:ANI right now, it's you. But since we are on the topic of socks, yes, I highly doubt that Weeb Dingle is your first Wikipedia account. Using the "Edits by user" feature (found in the article's edit history) shows just how long I've been with this article. Watching and/or editing sexual/anatomy/gender topics (among other things) is my domain, as various editors can attest to. I edit and/or watch sexology, psychology, anatomy, and gender topics (and other types of topics). All you keep doing, across different articles, is complaining and usually not fixing anything. Adding your own, unsourced wording is not fixing anything in Wikipedia terms. Stating "If I see any problems with your edits to this article, I will either revert you and likely source the material or change the material in some other way." is not harassment. Go ahead and read WP:Harassment. I have every right to revert you and to state that I will. Do stop responding to me with nonsense. WP:OR and uncivil, harassing nonsense will not be tolerated. If you edit appropriately and stop the WP:Personal attacks, there is no issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's do something useful
The second sentence of the article seems to make no logical sense.
 * Physical intimacy is characterized by friendship, platonic love, romantic love, or sexual activity.

How is "friendship" physically intimate? Or is there a skipped step or reversed order of presentation? I can see where friendship might lead to physical intimacy; it's much less obvious how proxemics and propinquity can lead to friendship (or other forms of intimacy) but this would need to be more explicitly written out, and very early on.

Anyone with excessive free time is welcome to do it, actually, so I'll get back the next storm. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)