Unfortunately this article suffers from the modern tendency of reducing eros to sexuality. The wider meaning of eros as a type of love always connoted a union; yes, like sexual partners, but also like a group of soldiers fighting together, a jazz band jamming together etc.
In fact, eros is heavily required today in team sports; when a team of volleyball players are in flow, the usual boundaries between different players are no longer salient, they have to act in so tight synchrony, they have to have such accurate models of each other's participation that, mentally they are lost in each other, they act as one, they are one. This is closer to the meaning of an erotic army that Phaedrus is talking about than a bunch of warriors that just had sex with each other.
I wish you explained which one of the 5000 propositions in that article was in disagreement with my opinion in your opinion instead of throwing the whole article out there.
In fact, eros is heavily required today in team sports; when a team of volleyball players are in flow, the usual boundaries between different players are no longer salient, they have to act in so tight synchrony, they have to have such accurate models of each other's participation that, mentally they are lost in each other, they act as one, they are one. This is closer to the meaning of an erotic army that Phaedrus is talking about than a bunch of warriors that just had sex with each other.