Actually, according to the ancient Greeks, there were (at least) five different kinds of love: agape (ideal or Platonic love), eros (passionate love), philia (love between friends), storge (natural affection, e.g., between parents and children), and xenia (hospitality towards strangers).
So, in fact, you are mistaken when you claim that the completely non-sexual hug exchanged between the child and the vagrant in this story had an "erotic aspect." That's because eros does indeed always have sexual connotations (though, of course, it need not always result in "release.")
On the other hand, you are quite right in pointing out that the word consummation does not refer only to the completion of marriage by sexual intercourse, but also to the completion and/or fulfillment of any plan, concept, or transaction.
Regards,
Well, I'm mistaken if the Plato through C.S. Lewis account and distinctions of the kinds of love is adequate. I happen not to think that it is.
That's because eros does indeed always have sexual connotations (though, of course, it need not always result in "release.")
I think Freud, rightly understood (that is, of course, understood the way I, moiself, understand him), is right that there is some drive or tendency (which he calls "Eros" but I don't think he means to confine himself to the Greek understanding of Eros) which is at work or part of one's relationship to a child, a pet, a rose, a friend, a lover, a spouse, or God himself.
This is why I tried to distinguish (in my use of language) between "sexual" and "genital". (I find "sexual" a vague term. The division which "sex" implies does not exist in homosexual eros manifested in genital acts, though that has ambiguous implications.) I would say that not all "Eros" is genital. I would disagree with a friend who maintained that the mature expression of "Eros" is genital. I would want to say that "Eros" functions in the infant rooting for the breast (as well as in the adolescent boy fumbling for the same, but with different plans.) But I would also says that is is a component or an "input" of my reciting the Rosary, which, I would speedily add, does not mean that I have any "physical" longings for Our Lady. I do have a longing for increasing union with God.
Back to the classics: I think the Phaedrus looks at Eros as a kind of instigator of the Philia in philosophy, and while I have not read the relevant documents, I believe BenXVI also discusses Eros as an element or maybe precursor of love for God. Certainly there is an erotic aspect to Catherine of Siena's writing.
I avoided the use of "agape", because I had a thought that it was not used much by ancient Greeks. My Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich and my Kittel find almost nothing but uncertain evidence before the Christian era. The word does seem to show up in a prayer to Isis. I think its technical use really begins with Paul. I think philia is the "Platonic" love.
Well, I hope that's clear, if not plausible ....