Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    	I think it boils down to the two most important components for
    	me, which are trust and comfortableness.  It could take years,
    	or it could happen immediately.
    
    	With me, saying I want to be friends first can also imply that 
    	the person doesn't interest me on a romantic level, and that's 
    	simply a handy way of toning things down.  This is not always 
    	the case, but it has happened more than once.  If I am wanting 
    	to pursue something more than "friends", then I'm more likely 
    	to express interest in doing so by not giving out blasting and
    	blatant indicators of platonic expressions.
    
	Carla
    

    Ken,
    
         I've only converted one friendship into a romantic relationship.
    That was a unique situation.  In most cases, the conversion would be
    highly unlikely, regardless of which person wanted it. 
    
         On the other hand, I have had dates who became great friends. 
    One I have known for over a decade, and romance still flares up every
    year or so.
    
         There is a reason why men consider the phrase "We can still be
    friends" to be the kiss of death.  I've yet to witness a case where a
    guy has been 'demoted' to that status who has ever made it back to the
    romance level.  I can't speak for what women think of the phrase.
    
                                      Greg

	 Perhaps I'm "strange", but it's either black or white with
	 me.  I'm either very attracted to someone romantically, or
	 I'm attracted to them platonically.

	 When I met Pat, my longest, most involved relationship, I
	 never even contemplated anything "romantic" with
	 him.....being friends with him was exactly like....well, like
	 be being friends with Susan, my best friend from college.  It
	 didn't make any difference what sex either of them were....I
	 still went out a lot with both of them, and had a blast.
	 Sure, Pat and I hugged a lot, but so did Susan and I.  Never
	 in a sexual way, tho.

	 Then one day, it just changed for both of us...both of us
	 wanted something more....and we moved into it.

	 Then again...I have another friend who is simply a friend
	 just like Pat was initially to me...but him and I have slept
	 together, had sex, fooled around...everything...but it's
	 still a friendship.  And the sex is just
	 that.....sex....there is no "emotional attachment"...

	 Friendship comes in many forms......I don't believe you can
	 categorize it....but the basic qualities are always there....

	 kath
	 

    The thing about being friends is that you learn to enjoy each other's
    company without any expectations as to what the time together may
    bring.
    
    It is surprising how good a time you can have when you have minimal
    expectations.

    the people I just say "Hi" to I consider acquaintances.  The number
    of true friends I have I can count on two hands.  I know everyone
    has their own definition of friendship though, and it's hard to
    quantify the boundaries.  It has to do with trust, respect, devotion,
    loyalty, and willingness to go that extra mile.
    
    Generally the friendship part is important in a relationship because
    if you can't TALK to someone, and LIKE them, and share who you are
    with them, there's nothing to base a total relationship on.  Why
    go to bed with someone and then not know what to say the morning
    after?  COMFORT with someone is bred through friendship, and comfort
    is what leads to communication and sharing that maintains a
    relationship through months and years.
    
    -Jody
    

    Friends are those rare people who enrich our lives in some way.
    
    Friendship in a relationship is important to me.  Without it, the
    relationship lacks something, and generally (IMO) falls short.  This is
    difficult to put into words, since friendship isn't easy to define. 
    Friendship develops over time, as do relationships.
    
    I've been able to maintain a friendship with some men I've dated, when
    we realize that we each have different goals, wants and needs.  It's
    not easy, but it is definitely possible.  With other men, it was better
    just to let go of the relationship and go our separate ways.
    
    When you're with a friend, you have something to talk about in the
    morning! ;}
    
    Judi
    

    To me, being best friends with the one I love is the only way.
    As mentioned previously, it would probably be impossible to discover
    love with someone who is a friend. The way it's happened with me,
    is that they both develop together. After dating for awhile, you
    start to realize that you love this lady you're seeing, and also
    that she has become your best friend and confidant.
    
    Nils
    

    I agree with kath, you can have a friend that you love enough to want
    to be with and have sex, but you aren't "IN" love with. I think the
    reason most people hate "we can still be friends" is that it usually
    means no sex anymore. liesl

>I think the
>    reason most people hate "we can still be friends" is that it usually
>    means no sex anymore.
    
    I think you're probably right. How many times did you hear "let's just
    be friends, ok?" and think, well, so much for this one...
    
    The only thing I'll take issue with is the word "anymore." :-) It
    assumes there was sex to begin with.
    
    The Doctah

         Sometime in college I read something that said men tend to fall in
    love with women they considered friends, and women tended to not be
    romantically interested in men they consider friends.  Of course this
    is just a tendancy, not a hard and fast rule.
    
         My wife and I were friends for a year before we ever started going
    out together.  I've had friendships which developed into relationships
    and relationships which seemed to pop up out of the blue.  I always was
    more comfortable with the relationships which started out as
    friendships because I seemed to know the person better and usually had
    less surprises.
    
    ASP

    Well, after reading the replys, I get the message that it is really up
    to the individual. Doesn`t seem to be any set rules about how you are
    going to be friends. It does seem that a friendship has to exist before
    a romance can be lasting. But the type of friendship can vary all over
    the place. And the "I have to be friends first" doesn`t seem to mean a
    whole lot. Romance and emotional involvement seem to go hand in hand
    for me.
    
    	I personally like to take some time to get to know someone on a 
    friendship level before I allow romance to come into play. It seems to
    me the only way to do that is to be friends without any expectations.
    That way the person I am with is more likely to be herself and I can
    respond to that real person. When enough time is spent together in that
    way, finding out if there is any substance to becomming romantically
    involved, the friendship can be expanded upon.
    
    	Although the replys aren`t straight forward, the infomation was
    enough to satisfy my curiosity. Although a couple things were said that
    I would really like clairification on. Given that our life styles are
    varied but a couple things were brought up that are foreign to me.
    
    Re: .4 and .9
    	Sex with no emotional attachment and love someone enough to have
    sex with but not be "IN" love with??????????? I think I must be living
    in a different world. And frankly I don`t know how this can be done,
    unless... well, I don`t won`t to get into my own personal feelings
    because I may be looking at it in the wrong way. So could you help me
    understand how you can be involved in such a personal and intimate
    activity and not be emotionally attached?? and what is the difference
    between loving someone and being "IN" love, in a sexual way???
               		
                     Thanks,
    	--Ken--
    

<    Re: .4 and .9
<    	Sex with no emotional attachment and love someone enough to have
<    sex with but not be "IN" love with??????????? I think I must be living
<    in a different world. And frankly I don`t know how this can be done,
<    unless... well, I don`t won`t to get into my own personal feelings
<    because I may be looking at it in the wrong way. So could you help me
<    understand how you can be involved in such a personal and intimate
<    activity and not be emotionally attached?? and what is the difference
<    between loving someone and being "IN" love, in a sexual way???
               		

     I see love on a sliding scale and not as a yes/no option. (wish I
    knew the decwindows terms ;*))

    I wasn't the one who said "no emotional" attachment so I can't
    answer that one, I would feel an emotional attachment. Guess I'm
    just an old fashioned kinda gal, I don't see sex as an option with
    someone I don't care about. It is too intimate and soul revealing
    for me to handle "casual" sex. I don't feel I need to be in "you're
    the only man for me, lets get married" love in order to want someone
    however. Sometimes, it's the only sort of relationship you may be
    able to handle.

    Perhaps we are back to the old 'friend vs lover' argument. If you have
    someone with whom you share intimate moments and laughter and
    friendship, and if it's right for both of you, then sex seems like a
    natural outcome. It doesn't have to mean either of you might not be
    looking for something else in a life mate but I wouldn't find it very
    fulfilling if there weren't some emotional attachment.

    Love and sex have a lot of different meanings. I suppose we all make
    our own life out of the meanings we chose to live by. liesl

<    Re: .4 and .9
<    	Sex with no emotional attachment and love someone enough to have
<    sex with but not be "IN" love with??????????? I think I must be living
<    in a different world. And frankly I don`t know how this can be done,
<    unless... well, I don`t won`t to get into my own personal feelings
<    because I may be looking at it in the wrong way. So could you help me
<    understand how you can be involved in such a personal and intimate
<    activity and not be emotionally attached?? and what is the difference
<    between loving someone and being "IN" love, in a sexual way???


	 I'm the culprit...I used the term "emotional attachment".  To
	 me there is a difference between "emotion" and "emotional
	 attachment."  I've had a couple experiences where I had very
	 close male friends, and sex felt right....it was sort of a
	 way of ultimate sharing...sure emotion was involved...it was
	 perhaps the most "selfless" sex I've ever had...something I
	 rarely find in an "emotionally attached" relationship.

	 I can feel "emotion" with someone without feeling
	 "emotionally attached".....perhaps by attached I mean there
	 are certain expectations that people place on each other when
	 they have sex and are romantically interested in each other.
	 (Did that make sense?) :-)

	 The friends that I've shared with this way.....we all wanted
	 something different in life than the other person could
	 offer.  But sharing in such an intimate way was an ultimate
	 form of the expression of that friendship.  No regrets
	 afterwards, and no change in the course of the
	 friendship...it was simply something that felt right at the
	 time and we went with it.....

	 it's a very rare form of friendship, tho....

	 kath

>   So what is it that would make up a good friendship prior to
>   establishing a relationship. Is sex involved, passionate
>   kissing, or are only hugs ...

I never felt friendship was required PRIOR to establishing a
relationship. 

I could tell, within the first meeting, whether a girl was going to
attract me. Maybe by the way she looked (not necessarily 'good
looking' in the classical way); or maybe, by something witty and
bright she said; or, just by the way her anatomical features were
arranged. 

Once seeing each other regularly, many interactions would start to
concurrently play out. For the relationship to become long lived,
**all** these interactions had to be positive. Sure, a true Friendship
had to be formed. But also, others requirements were just as
mandatory: there had to be deep rapport, compatibility had to be
proven in several important areas and social acceptance had to be
formed. 

The odds are slim for all these things to happen to two people
simultaneously, so it's not surprising I only had two lasting
relationships (by lasting, I mean well over a year). All others
either never got to the point of being A Relationship or fizzled out
fairly soon after becoming one (sometimes, after we **did** become
good friend, but lacking some of the other important ingredients). 

On the second relationship, I eventually realized that 'this was
it' for us, so we got married. Since neither of us died since then,
we are both still married. To each other.

As I said, I never felt friendship was required PRIOR to establishing
a relationship. It's only mandatory if you want the relationship to
be permanent, to not only survive, but grow. 

-- Ron 

Interesting...

I find something attractive in almost every person that I meet.  It used to be
that whether or not I wanted to become 'involved' with another person was a
question which never came into my mind.  If they were interested in me, that was
all that it took.

But perhaps I was tuning some people out before I was ever aware of doing so...
I haven't ended up with any really slimey people, nor have I had a *long* string
of lovers.  Perhaps it's because I don't tend to attract real slimeballs.  

Each of the few people I'e been involved with has been special to me, but it's
interesting that I never conciously asked myself to choose whether to get to
know them or not.  It's always been a given that I did want to get to know them.
It may seem weird that these people were 'special to me', even though there was
no list of characteristics which they had to fullfill, nothing "special" about
them.  They were just people individually special.

In the book, the Little Prince, the prince meets a fox, and for a while they
play together every day, untill one day it's time for the Little Prince to go
back to his planet, B612.  They talk about how they will miss each other, and
realize that although their is no special reason for them to be important to
each other, it was the time that they spent together which has made each other
important to the other.

In the Velveteen Rabbit, the same sort of thing makes the toys 'real'...

I guess that I took the Christian ethic to heart, that you should love everyone.
Perhaps I take it further then it is meant to be, in that it means something
concrete and real to me, rather then being an abstract intellectualization. It
makes life difficult when someone wants to be your 'one and only', but it also
means that I never have to go through the agony of choosing one person over
another when what I really want is both.  

To many, it may seem that I am shiftless and faithless, but being able to love
more then one person is important to me.  I actually am faithfull and will do
all that I can for those close to me, except give up other people.

Lately, I've been trying to be a little more selective, and be a part of the
decision of who I involve in my life.  It helps me be a little less 'passive
aggressive', and be a little more in charge of my life.

I've also tried to get to know people as friends before I allow myself to get
attached to them and be 'forward' with them.  That is difficult when I find
something attractive in most people. :-)  I don't think that I like that very
much because it doesn't feel like I am allowing myself to be myself.  It also
means that I am not allowing the other person to get to know me as myself.  Like
it or not, I don't think that I can conform to 'sociey's' standards.

What does this have to do with the topic?  Well, I can't seem to get to know
people as friends first, and possibly some rambling explaination why. :-)

Jim.

    Re: 17
    I frankly didn't get all of IT .    (Was the Prince a fox too ?)
    
    I believe there was a movie out there..
    was it , "Harry met Sue" or "When Harry met Sue" starring Bill Crystal?
    which dealt with some of the dynamics of the base note. 

    Re: .18
    
    _When Harry Met Sally_ with Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan.

I've been doing some interesting reading lately about friendship and marriage.
The traditional definition of friendship, as described by Aristotle, is
based on three things:

  1)  Friends enjoy each others company.

  2)  Friends are useful to each other.  They help each other in some way.
      (perhaps to grow as individuals)

  3)  They share a commitment to some common good
      (for which they work together).

I've found this 3rd element very powerful.  There's something
about working together which is self transforming.


What is marriage?  (from Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth")

  The myth tells you what is is.  It's the reunion of the separated duad.
  Originally you were one.  You are now two in the world, but the recognition
  of the spiritual identity is what marriage is.  It's different from a love
  affair.  It has nothing to do with that.  It's another mythological plane of
  experience.  When people get married because they think it's a long-time
  love affair, they'll be divorced very soon, because all love affairs end in
  disappointment.  But marriage is recognition of a spiritual identity.  If
  we live a proper life, if our minds are on the right qualities in regarding
  the person of the opposite sex, we will find our proper male or female
  counterpart.  But if we are distracted by certain sensuous interests,
  we'll marry the wrong person.  By marrying the right person, we reconstruct
  the image of the incarnate God, and that's what marriage is.

    MOYERS: The right person?  How does one choose the right person?

    CAMPBELL:  Your heart tells you.  It ought to.

    MOYERS:  Your inner being.

    CAMPBELL: That's the mystery.
.
.
.
There's lots more.  I certainly recommend the book.  Myths represent
thousands of years of trying to understand the human experience.

- Peter