Fear of Intimacy

DC · 02-24-2008, 04:08 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Compray</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny you mentioned Jesus and His disciples as I do use that example when talking to folks about the different levels of friendships. I do know that I am missing my John but that's OK. It's never too late for a shower of rain they say. Perhaps one day I will forget and I will start to trust again. </div></div>

Yup, easier said than done, as you've said,..but go for it when you are comfortable.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

**mspeach** · 02-24-2008, 04:12 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

This is a great article, it probably touches people in many different ways. It has many different views that one can see another way. I agree, that the foundation to relationship is having a friendship. This thread really touch me.

**Diplomat** · 02-24-2008, 06:12 PM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
mmmmmmmmm [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70402-thinking.gif[/img] What I think is left to the reader, is not what intimacy is, but what at what stage you think you are in the process of intimacy; basically, how do you define that particular stage of intimacy Yes, the basic definition is to 'know and be known', but it needs re-defining at each level of 'knowing' and 'being known', especially when it is being formed in the context of a potential lasting friendship between two consenting adults (male and female presumably). The article mentioned the introverts and the extroverts personalities, which contributes to how quickly or how cautiously one is willing to form that intimate relationship. Intial hesitancy does not necessarily mean the person has a fear of intimacy, it just means the person is cautious by nature and does not take risks readily. So, in that you will find the two parties involved at different stages of intimacy. Another factor is the gender difference. Intimacy is the essence of the feminine nature, so romance and intimacy will be a natural intertwine for a woman, especially if it is already been mutually agreed upon that the friendship has a certain potential for something established. (Note I am not speaking of sexual intimacy. I am speaking in terms of the general definition.) That is why a continous redefining of the relationship is healthy for both parties involved, I think.
The truth is, some friendships do start with the phileo love, but some start with a wink of attraction for the opposite sex, and it grows from there. The questions is, when is it the right time to move from the phileo to the eros? For me, there is no 'right' time. Eros is a huge part of the stages of a healthy friendship/relationship/intimacy that has been established and has potential for long lasting friendship, anwyays, so why not have romance added as part of the growth too?

...my 15.03 cents.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]..its late,but it was an interesting comment and wanted to respond as I understood it, so hopefully you gather some sense in all of this... </div></div>
I read yours a number of times and am still not sure if I got all of it, but here goes [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img] BTW, I usually do not post on Sundays, but am making an exception as I doubt if my train of thought on the issue will last until tomorrow [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

I do not see where the article speaks of "stages" of intimacy, though knowing and being known could potentially be a life long process for people - friends or spouses - who manage to build life long friendships/relationships. I do agree with you that for any number of reasons, people can be hesitant to open themselves up to others, and vice versa, but I think that like with everything else in life, it really is a matter of choice. Are there risks? Absolutely, but generally speaking, we were created with the capacity for far more than we give ourselves credit for, and everything in life, good and bad, provides us with wonderful opportunities to learn.

There are four kinds of relationships - complete love, self-giving love, friendship, and infatuation. Each contain the same three elements - intimacy (philia), committment (agape), and passion (eros). The difference in each relationship is the degree to which the elements are present, and interestingly, the relationship where intimacy is highest is friendship, and it is lowest in infatuation. This is where I agree with you that friendships need to be redefined, but I believe that redefinition has to be relative to the degree to which the elements of intimacy, committment, and passion are present. We can have a high level of intimacy with someone but they could be friends for life and not necessarily a spouse.

That last point goes to your <span style="color: #000099">"Intimacy is the essence of the feminine nature, so romance and intimacy will be a natural intertwine for a woman, especially if it is already been mutually agreed upon that the friendship has a certain potential for something established."</span> While there is a measure of truth to it, I believe this "natural intertwine" is inherently dangerous. The key word there is "potential". Because intimacy alone cannot sustain a romantic relationship, the intertwine can be problematic if it becomes the primary force driving the friendship. Excellent point re the "mutual agreement" for the exploration of whatever potential there might be.

I do not believe that two people move from philia to eros simply because both experiences, along with agape, make up the three sides of complete love. A friendship/relationship with the potential for lasting/functional romance, require all three - committment, intimacy, and passion - in 'equal' proportions. So two people can both agree to explore possibilities, but the outcome is dependent on the degree to which the elements are genuinely mutually present.

Interestingly, the Bible does not refer to 'eros' at no point when talking about marital relationships.

DC · 02-24-2008, 09:52 PM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

oh my, can of worms huh? Let me get back to you...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, the Bible does not refer to 'eros' at no point when talking about marital relationships.</div></div>

Does not mean that passion is not as important as agape or phileo in a relationship, seeing that is a natural part of who we are. And I would also beg to differ when reading the Book of Solomon.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

**Diplomat** · 02-25-2008, 02:03 PM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">oh my, can of worms huh? Let me get back to you...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, the Bible does not refer to 'eros' at no point when talking about marital relationships.</div></div>
Does not mean that passion is not as important as agape or phileo in a relationship, seeing that is a natural part of who we are.</div></div>
Agreed. That's why in my previous response I said "I do not believe that two people move from philia to eros simply because both experiences, along with agape, make up the three sides of complete love."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And I would also beg to differ when reading the Book of Solomon.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img] </div></div>
You just had to go there [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] Songs of Solomon, an interesting book. Doesn't mention "God", is not quoted anywhere in the New Testament (a bit of an oddity given the NT teachings on marriage and the marital relationship), nothing about religion/religious duties or lack thereof, to name a few characteristics. Primarily though, a book of allegories, i.e. symbolic representations of God's affection for Israel with the "bride" and "groom" as shepherds. But, I do understand the temptation of many to see it as a book of/about eros (passion/romance) [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img] But even in the SoS, the Hebrew word translated 'love' does not carry any erotic connotations, again because the book is allegorical - God's love for His people isn't erotic.

DC · 02-25-2008, 07:05 PM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I read yours a number of times and am still not sure if I got all of it, but here goes [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img] BTW, I usually do not post on Sundays, but am making an exception as I doubt if my train of thought on the issue will last until tomorrow [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

I do not see where the article speaks of "stages" of intimacy, though knowing and being known could potentially be a life long process for people - friends or spouses - who manage to build life long friendships/relationships. I do agree with you that for any number of reasons, people can be hesitant to open themselves up to others, and vice versa, but I think that like with everything else in life, it really is a matter of choice. Are there risks? Absolutely, but generally speaking, we were created with the capacity for far more than we give ourselves credit for, and everything in life, good and bad, provides us with wonderful opportunities to learn.

There are four kinds of relationships - complete love, self-giving love, friendship, and infatuation. Each contain the same three elements - intimacy (philia), committment (agape), and passion (eros). The difference in each relationship is the degree to which the elements are present, and interestingly, the relationship where intimacy is highest is friendship, and it is lowest in infatuation. This is where I agree with you that friendships need to be redefined, but I believe that redefinition has to be relative to the degree to which the elements of intimacy, committment, and passion are present. We can have a high level of intimacy with someone but they could be friends for life and not necessarily a spouse.

That last point goes to your <span style="color: #000099">"Intimacy is the essence of the feminine nature, so romance and intimacy will be a natural intertwine for a woman, especially if it is already been mutually agreed upon that the friendship has a certain potential for something established."</span> While there is a measure of truth to it, I believe this "natural intertwine" is inherently dangerous. The key word there is "potential". Because intimacy alone cannot sustain a romantic relationship, the intertwine can be problematic if it becomes the primary force driving the friendship. Excellent point re the "mutual agreement" for the exploration of whatever potential there might be.

I do not believe that two people move from philia to eros simply because both experiences, along with agape, make up the three sides of complete love. A friendship/relationship with the potential for lasting/functional romance, require all three - committment, intimacy, and passion - in 'equal' proportions. So two people can both agree to explore possibilities, but the outcome is dependent on the degree to which the elements are genuinely mutually present.

Interestingly, the Bible does not refer to 'eros' at no point when talking about marital relationships. </div></div>

Okay, a couple of things. We agree on the first part, but the more i look at this, i think we are having thoughts according to our gender. For one thing, why is the intertwining of intimacy and romance considered dangerous? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif[/img] I think romance is a natural result of a growing intimacy. What's 'romance' for you? And I am not sure if we are on the same understanding level of what we mean by eros. Passion denotes emotions, and at the very basic level, simply attraction. If you meet someone you are not attracted to, then then that is true phileo love. But if attraction is there, then eros is present, IMO. So it is not a matter of moving from one to the other, cause both are present. Both cannot be ignored. I don't think you can focus on phileo or just maintaining brotherly love and forget about the feelings of attraction. It ain't so brotherly to me! [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

As I've said, there is no formula or method or timing to the process. It's just that it is good to be aware of the potential hindrances in this process of forming intimacy in just about any relationship. And also the possible factors that can affect, eg. personalities, and gender differences.

mmmmm maybe this is more suitable for DearK? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

DC · 02-25-2008, 07:14 PM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">oh my, can of worms huh? Let me get back to you...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, the Bible does not refer to 'eros' at no point when talking about marital relationships.</div></div>
Does not mean that passion is not as important as agape or phileo in a relationship, seeing that is a natural part of who we are.</div></div>
Agreed. That's why in my previous response I said "I do not believe that two people move from philia to eros simply because both experiences, along with agape, make up the three sides of complete love."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And I would also beg to differ when reading the Book of Solomon.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img] </div></div>
You just had to go there [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] Songs of Solomon, an interesting book. Doesn't mention "God", is not quoted anywhere in the New Testament (a bit of an oddity given the NT teachings on marriage and the marital relationship), nothing about religion/religious duties or lack thereof, to name a few characteristics. Primarily though, a book of allegories, i.e. symbolic representations of God's affection for Israel with the "bride" and "groom" as shepherds. But, I do understand the temptation of many to see it as a book of/about eros (passion/romance) [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img] But even in the SoS, the Hebrew word translated 'love' does not carry any erotic connotations, again because the book is allegorical - God's love for His people isn't erotic.

</div></div>

Sure..we understand the proper agape context, but it uses the relationship between a man and woman to depict that love, and when you look at it from the human experience, I see 'passion' in its pages.

mmmmmm now we need to move to faith and reason.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

DC · 02-25-2008, 07:21 PM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ms_peach</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a great article, it probably touches people in many different ways. It has many different views that one can see another way. I agree, that the foundation to relationship is having a friendship. This thread really touch me. </div></div>

[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70459-hugs.gif[/img] Ms Peach..and not just friendship, true friendship..hard to come by in this time and age due to experiences..realistically speaking of course, but still gotta give some folks a chance to prove themselves..

**Diplomat** · 02-26-2008, 12:19 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Sure..we understand the proper agape context, but it uses the relationship between a man and woman to depict that love, and when you look at it from the human experience, I see 'passion' in its pages.</div></div>
It wasn't even agape either, but spoken like a true red-blooded woman [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mmmmmm now we need to move to faith and reason.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img] </div></div>
Not a bad idea [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] A discussion around "agape" would be interesting.

DC · 02-26-2008, 01:12 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Sure..we understand the proper agape context, but it uses the relationship between a man and woman to depict that love, and when you look at it from the human experience, I see 'passion' in its pages.</div></div>
It wasn't even agape either, but spoken like a true red-blooded woman [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
</div></div>

[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
Actually, I would wanna think I am able to give value to both the human and the spiritual experience. You know kinda looking at Jesus as the Son of God (spiritual) and the Son of Man (human), simultaneously. Most people place emphasis on the Son of God,(and rightly should) but finds it difficult to see Jesus in all his glory as a human being--using the bathroom, feelings of attraction (who to tell!), not smelling that great if he did not take bath on time, experiencing alllllll the biological, emotional stages of development as a full blooded male . People will probably understand him being hungry, tired, experiencing sadness and anger, but what about the rest of the human experience where it is said that he was tempted in all points as we are? ---yet without sin--as the bible says..
That's why I think agape, phileo and attraction/eros/passion are all important intimate human elements, each is not more valuable than the other in my humble opinion...

It wasn't agape? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] I thought it was basically about the relationship bet/w Jesus (BrideGroom) the Church (Bride)...then, discussion on agape would be a good thing [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] :bigup:

**Diplomat** · 02-26-2008, 01:53 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's why I think agape, phileo and attraction/eros/passion are all important intimate human elements, each is not more valuable than the other in my humble opinion...</div></div>
Again, we're agreed on that point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It wasn't agape? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] I thought it was basically about the relationship bet/w Jesus (BrideGroom) the Church (Bride)...then, discussion on agape would be a good thing [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] :bigup: </div></div>
Songs of Solomon is said to be about the relationship between God and Israel. It isn't a prophetic book and so was not looking forward to Christ and the Church. Also, "agape" is a Greek word which applies to the New Testament. In the SoS, about four different Hebrew words are translated "love", each with a different meaning ranging from female associate, friend, uncle, love token, and to have affection for, dependent on context.

Yep, discussion on "agape" - another one of those often misused words - whenever you're ready [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img]

DC · 02-26-2008, 02:04 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's why I think agape, phileo and attraction/eros/passion are all important intimate human elements, each is not more valuable than the other in my humble opinion...</div></div>
Again, we're agreed on that point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It wasn't agape? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] I thought it was basically about the relationship bet/w Jesus (BrideGroom) the Church (Bride)...then, discussion on agape would be a good thing [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] :bigup: </div></div>
Songs of Solomon is said to be about the relationship between God and Israel. It isn't a prophetic book and so was not looking forward to Christ and the Church. Also, "agape" is a Greek word which applies to the New Testament. In the SoS, about four different Hebrew words are translated "love", each with a different meaning ranging from female associate, friend, uncle, love token, and to have affection for, dependent on context.

Yep, discussion on "agape" - another one of those often misused words - whenever you're ready [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] </div></div>

sorry but had a question:
But in christianity isn't it also referred to as the love between God and His people? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70402-thinking.gif[/img]

you can begin anytime u wanna[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

**Diplomat** · 02-26-2008, 02:12 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

^
I'll start the "agape" thread in F&R, maybe tomorrow.

Re your question, are you referring to the SoS or agape?

DC · 02-26-2008, 02:14 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

agape..

**Diplomat** · 02-26-2008, 02:27 AM

Re: Fear of Intimacy

Some people have mistakenly used the word to mean "God's love" but that isn't correct. To the Greeks, "agape" refers to a certain kind of love, one in a social or moral context. In that context it is used to describe the kind of love God has for mankind. There's a bit more to it (the word) as well, and we'll look at that in our follow-up discussion.

Fear of Intimacy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads