I Believe Intimacy Is Not Purely Sexual
Why can't I remember anything?
Actually, I can remember reading about THIS, but I couldn't practically remember how it goes. Of course, it's "just a theory" (a hypothesis in this case), although other studies have corroborated only with the caveat that real life and relationships are more complex and don't fit any one pattern. Also, I guess it's somewhat defining what these words mean in its context, that may be different from what most people use them in everyday usage, for "passion" and "intimacy" for example being opposites of the same axis. Fatuous love = "Love at first sight", love without knowledge of each other I suppose.
![]()
What is intimacy? This is one of the widest reaches given to it, from some SexEd slides (cited sources). "Intimate knowledge" is a common phrase, are we using intimacy just as a synonym for knowledge? Though it DOES apply specifically to the knowledge of each other, interpersonal knowledge. The connection to the Biblical meaning of "knowing" someone and sexual intimacy is interesting.
![]()
Scientists have divided Love into three stages (and I should hasten to say "average", because there's always one in the crowd who goes "Hey, that's not how it goes for me, I have... *trumpets blare, angels descend etc.* a soulmate!". Regardless, there are three stages delineated by the heightened presence of specific neurochemicals in a general romantic relationship. And someone get me a better infographic, pronto, because these are separate and don't even have typical durations listed! These phases affect the importance and types of intimacy we desire and seek.
![]()
![]()
One could write a book on this, and indeed several libraries have been written, feel free to consult your resident Google. (I think I've used that phrase before, but I can't remember as I said).
However, I'll end this on a thought on Maslow's hierarchy of needs - another hypothesis, though widely used as a basis in various psychological philosophies. A basic tenet of the original theory was that lower level needs have to be fulfilled before one can focus on their higher order needs. As such it's interesting that Sex occurs both in the lowest, physiological needs and Sexual Intimacy in the needs of love and belonging (In light of the above discussion, this seems to mean more general intimacy).
![]()
So, ladies, if he comes looking JUST for intimacy & friendship, he's already cheating on you with somebody else... just kidding, the needs do somewhat overlap while deficiency at a lower level is mostly considered a cause for trouble higher up in the hierarchy. And who knows he could be very intimate with his hand after all. But then, morality is at the highest hierarchy after all other needs are met, so... you never know. According to this theory though, sexuality is a more basic need than intimacy, but both are needed for effective self-actualization.
Actually, I can remember reading about THIS, but I couldn't practically remember how it goes. Of course, it's "just a theory" (a hypothesis in this case), although other studies have corroborated only with the caveat that real life and relationships are more complex and don't fit any one pattern. Also, I guess it's somewhat defining what these words mean in its context, that may be different from what most people use them in everyday usage, for "passion" and "intimacy" for example being opposites of the same axis. Fatuous love = "Love at first sight", love without knowledge of each other I suppose.
What is intimacy? This is one of the widest reaches given to it, from some SexEd slides (cited sources). "Intimate knowledge" is a common phrase, are we using intimacy just as a synonym for knowledge? Though it DOES apply specifically to the knowledge of each other, interpersonal knowledge. The connection to the Biblical meaning of "knowing" someone and sexual intimacy is interesting.
Scientists have divided Love into three stages (and I should hasten to say "average", because there's always one in the crowd who goes "Hey, that's not how it goes for me, I have... *trumpets blare, angels descend etc.* a soulmate!". Regardless, there are three stages delineated by the heightened presence of specific neurochemicals in a general romantic relationship. And someone get me a better infographic, pronto, because these are separate and don't even have typical durations listed! These phases affect the importance and types of intimacy we desire and seek.
One could write a book on this, and indeed several libraries have been written, feel free to consult your resident Google. (I think I've used that phrase before, but I can't remember as I said).However, I'll end this on a thought on Maslow's hierarchy of needs - another hypothesis, though widely used as a basis in various psychological philosophies. A basic tenet of the original theory was that lower level needs have to be fulfilled before one can focus on their higher order needs. As such it's interesting that Sex occurs both in the lowest, physiological needs and Sexual Intimacy in the needs of love and belonging (In light of the above discussion, this seems to mean more general intimacy).
So, ladies, if he comes looking JUST for intimacy & friendship, he's already cheating on you with somebody else... just kidding, the needs do somewhat overlap while deficiency at a lower level is mostly considered a cause for trouble higher up in the hierarchy. And who knows he could be very intimate with his hand after all. But then, morality is at the highest hierarchy after all other needs are met, so... you never know. According to this theory though, sexuality is a more basic need than intimacy, but both are needed for effective self-actualization.
