First off, I never assume anything. And I have had
A few relationships that make one say, "life is great" but eventually things change and the feeling isn't so great.

You're being argumentative.

Read your original comment.

You ARE assuming;

this comment - "full well knowing it will evolve into causing heartache for one and/or both??" is an assumption.

I was trying to make you see the positive possibilities... You just want to debate.

Have a good life.

@arizonajerry69 your responses rarely if ever have anything to do with my comment. I didn't say anything about sex. Yes, we had sex. That wasn't the issue between us. I am not interested in the swinging lifestyle...but don't care if others like it. I don't care about your evaluation system.

Only those open to risk (being hurt) can step up. What doesn't kill us does make us stronger. It also makes us eligible for happiness.
I lift my glass to the brave...(and I try to be one of them!)

You don't know the heartaches each of them have went through. So how about you?

@SerengetiLion I was married for over 25 years, I've been divorced for about 10. For my sister and her husband their biggest heartache is that their adult son will not outlive them. He has a genetic condition that used to kill children. It still does, it just kills them more slowly. In their marriage I know they have had rough spots but they worked through it. My marriage ended about 5 or 10 years before we actually got a divorce.

@arizonajerry69 Cure all regarding heart ache you mean? Or literally cures all? Because I have known terminally ill people that are dead that would disagree with the sex cures all line. >.>

It certainly "shouldn't" evolve that way but it does and I understand the reasoning of why.

Ok, I don't mean "end" in heartache but when it ends there was headache sometime during.

@LetzGetReal Yes, that is certainly an option. However, some of us are reluctant to answer and/or interact with such members.

@arizonajerry69 When there's no bio information and no photo, I immediately suspect a troll of some kind.

@LetzGetReal as I agree too

Intimacy can be viewed as our experience of mutual closeness with another person or persons. It includes trust, vulnerability, emotional risk taking, reciprocity, sharing and caring, self-disclosure, liking and loving. We can have intimate relationships with dear friends with whom we do not engage in sexual activity. I use this model in my sex ed work. [uua.org]

@UUNJ It can be viewed? Yes, it can be viewed by different people many different ways. But that is not the common understanding.

There is a variety of definitions including academic and psychological definitions. To me, what you wrote is emotional closeness to most common folks, not even love. Common people understand simple terms. They are not academic and they don't go reading books to understand what intimacy is. Intimacy to most folks is physical intimacy - not all those complex things. All other things are emotional connections.

Convoluted things are good materials for memes and quotes but not for common and day to day life. It needs to be simple and easy to understand.

"We went to dinner, had nice laughs, a great chat and we went to my room and got intimate last night".... this can exclude everything you mentioned above. It can be just wanting a good time, lust but needs no caring or loving. The world does not work that way. There are many things in life that are transnational including intimacy.

You women folks like to make things emotional. You need to have love everywhere.

@St-Sinner You say tomato, I say tomato. This model has been used for 20 years by sex educators teaching everyone from little kids to older adults, and it doesn’t seem to confuse anyone. I could argue that more people say “having sex” or “making love” than “getting intimate.”

@UUNJ

There you go. It is in the books. That definition does not work in the real world. Most bookish things do not work for common people. Commonly, intimacy is physical intimacy, not so many other things. May be in the elite, academic world but not to most people. It confuses people. You may mean intimacy to include all those things, others may not. Try saying "I feel intimate with you" sometime to a man and see what reaction you will get. Your proof is right there. Most likely you will only get one reaction. Academic discussion is one thing, the real world is another. It is good enough for books greeting cards, memes to feel or make feel nice and smoochie.

@St-Sinner I counsel, interact with,
and date “common people.” I’m not stuck in an ivory academic tower. Being in an intimate relationship doesn’t require the language you refer to. Someone who feels intimate with someone might feel more able to say, “I want to fuck you” or “Let’s make love.” Indeed, some people might only feel saying those phrases once they trust someone enough to be vulnerable. This has become a silly semantics digression from the original post.

@UUNJ
It is one definition and it is the one that you prefer. It is not mine and of many people I know.

This is the most common definition of intimacy from the dictionary..."an intimate act, especially sexual intercourse."

Synonyms...... sexual relations, sexual intercourse, sex, intercourse, lovemaking, act of love, carnal knowledge, sexual congress, congress; formalcoition, coitus, copulation.

It is not just about semantics because confusing young kids with wrong connotations can have consequences. Consider this scenario....

A teacher teaches kids that intimacy includes.... trust, vulnerability, emotional risk taking, reciprocity, sharing and caring, self-disclosure, liking and loving.

So a girl student comes home one day and tells Mom.... "Mom, I feel very intimate about John."

Now, it will be parents' and others' responsibility to correct the crap taught by teachers. Young minds are not mature enough to understand these complex definitions from classrooms about plain and simple things of life.

@St-Sinner You do you.

@St-Sinner It sounds like you are projecting... just because intimacy confuses you doesn't mean it confuses others.... I mean religions that prioritize emotional intimacy over physical intimacy teach about it... for example catholic schools we were taught about intimacy in the emotional sense cause obviously physical intimacy was not allowed until marriage... and this was in high school.... are you telling me that the avg human is dumber than a catholic high schooler?? >.>

@LetzGetReal
You said many men are emotional. That does not mean men in general. I was saying women in general are more emotional than men. Is it not a true statement?

All these are true statements - generally speaking..

1. Women like cuddling more than men do
2. Men are physically stronger than women are
3. Women are more emotionally expressive than men are
4. Women cry more than men do

These statements are not sexist. These are not my opinions. These are observations based on studies that say... "Empirical evidence suggests that girls are socialized to be emotional, non-aggressive, nurturing, and obedient, whereas boys are socialized to be unemotional, aggressive, achievement oriented, and self-reliant.".

If I were to express my opinion, it would be this... Most women like men to pay their restaurant bills.

@demifeministgal
I do not know how dumb Catholics are because I never was one. But I have held a belief that religious people are generally dumber than pragmatic people. But I can say Catholics are dumb for one reason.... they call the Pope the "Holy See" when he shits and farts just like all others.

The complex definition of intimacy does not confuse many according to you. I am saying it confuses many. Both are true statements.

@St-Sinner Those are stereotypes, not facts. If they were facts, you’d present research, which you won’t because you don’t appreciate academics. #mansplaining

@UUNJ I respect academic work but we often overdo it in real life. I was called over-educated for a long time. I know the fallacy of applying academic things in common life. It does not work.

Try to do a random short survey on what people understand by this sentence.... "I was intimate with her". You will know quickly that people do not go by the bookish definition in real life.

I do not present research because this is not a scholarly article or a thesis. That is the problem of academic orientation. A lot of things happen in life without citations, references, research. Snap out of it. This is a social platform. We are discussing points of view.

@St-Sinner You missed my point, which was that religious teens are somehow smarter than avg person. Also, aggression and anger ARE ALSO EMOTIONS. And if men tend to be more aggressive and angry, they are also quite emotional beings too. You just stigmatize some emotions that you consider girly over others, that is all.

@arizonajerry69
Yes, I agree. Distant last. We confuse intimacy with a lot of other words. Why isn't everybody like you?