framework. I think you're working with a faulty premise, which is why I'm breaking the discussion down to values. Basically, do you value familial or friendship bonds over romantic ones? You seem to, and I'm pushing against that because so far I haven't seen you provide any explanation for why one would be valued over the other.

>I kinda don't even know where to begin with this response...
>1, because you're sticking with familial and ignoring that I
>also said friendship

So add it back in, it doesn't really change the heart of what I'm saying about you valuing those types of love over another type of love. I just said familial because we're doing a lot of typing and I want to save time. If it's that important to you I'll say both.

>2, because you're assuming I didn't mean healthy familial
>bonds

No, I'm not assuming that. Good or bad examples aside, I don't understand why you value those as being paramount when compared to romantic love?

>Trust me, I very familiar with abuse of familial bonds, but
>what does that have to
>do with anything? We're not talking about abusing intimacy.
>We're talking about
>the need for it ahead of establishment... at least I am.

You are, and to close I'll reiterate my point that I'm questioning why you seem to either value romantic love less than other forms of love.

I could easily say that you shouldn't be a friend unless you can afford it, based of a history with needy, demanding, or just outright trifling friends or on the positive side, friends who were in bad spots and genuinely needed my time, money, energy. To which most people would retort, well you can be a friend without spending money or giving people things. I'd say the same applies to romantic love, so I don't understand why people need to meet a financial threshold to engage in later but not the former?


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard