open definition - boyfriend/girlfriend

[juldea]

What's the definition of boyfriend/girlfriend?

I'd like quantity in response to this, even at expense of quality. If you can take the time to drop a comment, even if it's just one word, I'd appreciate it a lot. You don't even have to continue reading if you have a response right now and no time to continue - just drop me what you have and go do what you need to do.

To clarify: Most people, as far as I know, don't associate dating with being in love. Those states are independent from each other; they just happen to overlap in the right circumstances. Therefore, 'love' isn't part of the definition of dating.

If I take out that emotional tie completely, I get two (or more) people who enjoy each other's company, have some similar interests, care about each other's well-being and happiness... and engage in some kind of physical activity that society generally reserves for such relationships (whether it's just kissing or goes on to much more depends on the individual).

But... that's the definition of 'friends with benefits' (using the real-life definition (not the LJ definition) of friend). Friends enjoy each other's company, have some similar interests, and care about each other's well-being and happiness. And benefits are the physical activities that are generally reserved for boy/girlfriend-and-up relationships.

So what's the midpoint? What state stands between a 'friend with benefits' and, uh, a 'loved person'? What am I missing as part of the definition that, in your mind, makes the relationships different?

I imagine (because I've already thought of it, and one other person has already suggested it) that many people are going to say, "Exclusivity." But, well, in the polyamorous society that is Cambridge/Somerville and most of the groups I hang out with now, that's not an acceptible answer. Dating one person doesn't mean you can't date/'benefit from' another, to many people. Therefore it isn't a part of the definition - at least not if the definition is universal. Which I guess leads me to:

Special bonus question: Is this definition universal, or does each individual have to define it for him/herself?

Comments

[gower.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's such a thing as a universal definition for such a nebulous concept. "Exclusivity" is too an acceptable answer. It just may not acceptable for you.

That's a pretty obvious thing to say, so I suspect what you really want to know goes deeper than that.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's obvious to you, but the reason I'm asking is because I've found no response to be obvious anymore. Therefore, what you said is indeed part of what I want to know.

Thanks for responding. :)

(and for reminding me that I was misspelling 'acceptable' by spelling it correctly)

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that there is a universal concept of love. Also even the word love is nebulous. The Greeks had several words for the different types of love. I think it is a shame that the English language is woefully inadequate in this measure. I have friends who I love in a platonical fashion, but yet I feel uncomfortable simply saying, "I love you." Then there is eros which would be more along the lines of lust, but I think eros love is more like friends with benefits (at least in my mind). Then there is agape. To me that is more along the lines of true love. To me it means giving yourself wholly to another individual. No secrets...no mind games...no taking advantage of anything. Equals...in essence two becoming one.

While you don't have to love someone to date them sometimes that can come about. Also for me...I could never be in a polyamorous relationship or date someone that would want/need something like that. I want complete devotion to me and in return I will give complete devotion. Anything less then that is frankly not worth my time or emotional energy.

I do believe in love at first sight. I've met people who I've felt like I've known all my life on the first meeting of them. I believe in true love. I also believe that someone can have a soulmate. I also believe it is possible to nurture a relationship that it can grow into true love.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I'm not discounting the things you said as unimportant, they didn't answer my question at all. However, I think I can reform the question for you based on some of the things you said.

If you were dating someone (and therefore giving/expecting devotion), but did not feel 'agape' for them, what is the basis of the devotion? Can you put it into words?

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Er, you just made the distinction: a friend vs. a loved one. Or rather, I suppose, you've reduced the distinction to the distinction between someone you like and someone you love. So, what's that mean to you? The interpretation I like best:

“Love” is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

—Jubal Harshaw, in Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land

In practice, though, people seem to say "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" even when things are well short of this sort of love. I would sometimes be cynical enough to say that, in practice, a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" is someone to whom your primary relationship is the sexual relationship, as opposed to a "friend with benefits" where they're still your friend independent of the benefits.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

So that's</> where I got that from! I've used that as my personal definition of "love" for ages, but had quite forgotten where I'd first encountered it. Neat!

[juldea.livejournal.com]

So, to you, if a boy/girlfriend were to stop having sex, they wouldn't have a friendship as strong as if a FWB couple were to stop? (I'm just clarifying - don't read any judgement into the statement.)

I remember that definition from SIASL, too. I haven't settled on what I think about it. I certainly know people who would balk at it, saying that creates too high a level of dependency. Or at least, I think they would balk at it, given what I know of their feelings on dependency so far.

[jester-king.livejournal.com]

Dating is simply an agreement between two people that they are romantically involved and are more than just friends.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Well then, define 'romantically involved.' :P

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

In general usage, "boyfriend" seems to mean "male person who is being dated regularly." Regularly is important; once won't do unless it was sufficiently good to establish clear intent of regularity thereafter.

["Date" itself is somewhat fuzzy of definition, of course, but it's a lot shorter than "physical activities that are generally reserved for boy/girlfriend-and-up relationships". Intent matters, also. Going out to a movie with someone may or may not be a "date", depending on further context. Sometimes only one of the people thinks that they're on a date, which is unfortunate.]

"Girlfriend" can mean the same thing, for females, but is somewhat diluted due to there being another common usage as "female friend" (though usually only used by other females).

So what's the midpoint? What state stands between a 'friend with benefits' and, uh, a 'loved person'?

I would say "commitment". Which is often (in mainstream culture) taken to include exclusivity, but need not.

There are of course different levels and definitions of commitment. The vital part (to my mind) is that the commitment be clearly understood by both parties. That's (at least in my mind) what wedding vows are really about -- making a clear statement of your mutual commitments.

[Another common fallacy is that the commitment must necessarily be symmetrical -- that each party must promise the same things to the other. I think the actual truth is more subtle. For a successful relationship, each party must get enough from the other to be satisfied, but the different partners may not even desire the same things.]

Special bonus question: Is this definition universal, or does each individual have to define it for him/herself?

That all depends what you mean by "definition" :-) Seriously, you can't arbitrarily change how a word is commonly used by a culture (no matter how hard the French try). On the other hand, you can change the usage of words among small social circles (and perhaps, over time, contribute to evolution of the meaning in the general population).

I think that the more fundamental question is "Do all relationships have to follow the same basic pattern?" To which I think the answer is clearly "no".

Within a given culture (macro or micro), there's generally a set of "default" rules (covering relationships, but also many other realms). Most people in the culture, most of the time, will follow the default rules. Deciding to break from that is liberating, though not without its costs. Quite apart from potential social censure, it makes problem-solving harder for oneself. The culture has established mechanisms for dealing with the problems caused by its rules. When you write your own rules, you may have to solve a new set of problems on your own. Luckily, in our current golden age of communication, this can be ameliorated to a large extent by finding people from cultures that have had to evolve solutions to problems similar to yours. "There are more of us than we think - for any value of 'us'."

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I'm at work, so my reply can't be as indepth and deconstructive as I'd like it to be. The quick response, however, is: Commitment to what? If not in love, it seems absurd to commit to a future together... And anything less seems (to me at least) to be the same kind of commitment made tacitly between good friends - to be there when the other is sad, etc etc. Is it the verbal expression of the commitment that makes it different than just a friendship?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Also, in response to your last sentence: I have found that many of my problems with society stem from the opposite belief. I think there are many more of 'us' than there actually are. There's some early entry in this LJ where the only text is, "The problem is, I think we're the majority," or something to that extent.

Sigh.

[shogunhb.livejournal.com]

It's very simple. Friends-with-benefits is a planned dead end. You say "This is what it is and nothing more". Dating is open ended. Dating implies a testing period leading perhaps to something more. It's between friends and love. It's potential.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

...

I like this. I will give it thought.

Thanks.

[ratbastrd.livejournal.com]

Personally I'd have to say that the difference between "friend+" and "girlfriend (or boyfriend)" is that with the latter, even if "in love" isn't the operative term yet, the potential is there. I'mprobably old fashioned in this, but dating is at least a search for real love, rather than just good company and orgasms, as far as I've alwasy been concerned. I won't and can't think of someone as an actual "girlfriend" unless I can see at least the possibility of a real future wutg that person. So I guess the defining differnece to me would be the perception of at least a potential future with that person.

This is probabyl an individualized definition. I don't know how anyone else thinks...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, as you say, "This is probably an individualized definition," your comment is posted right under another which gives the same definition. Hehe.

And I'll say the same thing to you as I said to him: I like this definition, and will give it much thought. Thanks. :)

I may be weird, but so are you, so let's move on...

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Is this definition universal, or does each individual have to define it for him/herself?

Universal anythings tend to bother me. That word never seems to mean what I think it means, which suggest even universal isn't a universal term. But I digress...

I've never seen or been in a relationship that was quite the same as another. As such, titles that define or quantify have to be agreed on. Yes, society places certain values on words, but terminology isn't fixed. Individuals defy societal values automatically anyway. In the end, the couple must decide what these terms mean and share their views as they see fit. Just remember that social circles sometimes push back.

My experience has been that the terms usually imply a level of commitment and some societal bond. (Would you introduce a lover as "my chewtoy" to your parents?) It may also imply dating with no known end in sight.

And for a good period term, use "my leman". A fun phrase from Chaucer.

Re: I may be weird, but so are you, so let's move on...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Wow, more people read my journal than I knew. You...sneaky people. ;)

Several people are bringing up similar definitions, which leads me to believe that there IS something universal, but perhaps it's more of a stereotype than part of the definition.

Leman, eh? Last night learnedax and I coined 'lemon twist' (he misheard me saying "love interest").

[starfruit.livejournal.com]

there is no universal definition, and for years i was bothered by the same ambiguity inherent with the label. trying out and rejecting various 'rules' via both thought and real life experiments, i eventually found one that felt right:

boy/girlfriend implies some mutual intention to find out how far it will go, the willingness to consider sacrifices necessary to stay together, and a commitment to emotional honesty (meaning that if you know you don't want it to go any farther than where it is, you say so as soon as you know).

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Another good, ponderous definition. Julia is happy to have such smart friends. :)

And I remember some of your real-life experiments. Heh. *hugs*

[siderea]

What state stands between a 'friend with benefits' and, uh, a 'loved person'?

Wow. I've been working on this question ever since I got involved with tn3270. My conclusion is that the answer is "a vast nameless no-mans-land"!

Furthermore, I've come to the conclusion that "boyfriend"/"girlfriend" have vastly more to do with how the couple relates to the outside world than to each other. That is, by referring to one's partner as a boy/girl-friend to others, one is asserting to others how one would like those others to relate to each of you. You're announcing that this person is to be treated as your "social mate" (my term).

In our culture (for perhaps a rather local definition of "our") there are all sorts of differences in how people interact with mated and non-mated people, and with the mates of mated people. Calling someone your boy/girl-friend is telling people "move me into the 'mated' class for conduct purposes, and move this other into the class of 'my mate'."

(Not, mind you, that there's any consensus on what those differences in conduct should be. But people do behave as if they had a consensus that there should be a consensus. :) There isn't, but, hey.)

(I will also point out before going further that, for some reason, my observation shows that 'socially mated' rules are much stricter than the social rules for actually married or engaged people. So take all the examples as pertaining to "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationships, but not married or engaged people!)

Some of those differences of conduct have to do with the potential sexual availability of people. Some feel it is inappropriate to flirt or hit on a socially mated person. They're 'taken', and, furthermore, if they felt it OK to be flirted with or hit on (so the presumption goes) they would not have revealed they have a social mate. This tends to be a mono-centric view of things, but it's still wide spread.

There's a bunch of more subtle things, too, that have nothing to do with sex.

For instan ce, you will start getting joint invitations, and the invitations you get that look like personal invitations are actually (often, but not always) joint invitations. People will stop inviting you to things for which they might like you personally to atte nd, if they don't have room/inclination to invite your boy/girl-friend.

That is, if a friend thinks "Gee, it would be nice to have a chat with X again," they might go on to think, "But X is seeing Y, and I'm not interested in having a chat with a stran ger (Y), so never mind." I have been party to dinner-party plans where "Hey, we have one seat left, let's invite... never mind, they have a boyfriend and we don't have room for two."

Personally, all this makes my teeth grind. I do not like it when othe r people expect me to treat them differently because of whom they fuck. I can't be bothered to track other people's sexual partners. If you haven't "made it permanent", it's a hell of an imposition on me to expect me to keep track of whom you're boffing. Worse, I loathe it when other people treat me differently because of whether or not they perceive me as fucking someone.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

First off: I'm glad you commented, and in fact I was hoping you would. You seem like someone who would have good, interesting things to say, and look - you did! :)

I agree with you on that last part. My boyfriend and I are separate people, and I find it completely plausible that some of his friends don't like me and some of my friends don't like him - or, in smaller amounts, prefer one's company to the other. In this case, I'd hope that if only one of us were to get an invitation to some kind of event, it would be explicitly stated that the invitation is to the couple or not. If not, I'm not going to assume that both of us are invited.

Secondly, though, I guess I should've been more clear in my question: I really am looking for how the interaction is defined for the couple, not necessarily how it defines them in society. I guess 'vast nameless no-man's land' is one way of defining it, if you're just as clueless as I am...

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

This has been a very interesting thread. One of the things that has ineterested me is the view and attitude of sex in a relationship. I must admit that when it comes to sex my view is very conservative. I've only ever had one partner...my wife.

This might be off topic a bit, but I think it would be interesting to explore anyway. My view of sex is that it is a very intimate act to be shared. In order for me to share this act with someone it would have to be someone that committed themselves to the relationship such as marriage.

I understand that different people view sex differently and that's fine. I'm not going to condem people merely because they have different views. However, when it does come to dating and marriage I believe it is important that the two people share similiar if not the same views of sex. If not this could be a cause of a lot of friction.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

When it does come to dating and marriage I believe it is important that the two people share similiar if not the same views of sex. If not this could be a cause of a lot of friction.

I agree absolutely. No matter how much you care for someone, if your attitudes about sexuality differ, you should stop now and try to just be friends. No good can come out of it otherwise.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

Well, between alexx_kay, shogunhb, and siderea most of what I would say has been expressed. A new thought bubbles up reading theirs, however, which is that the nature of {Boy,Girl}friendness can be seen as the junction of the individual and the universal. There exist a wide variety of relationships under those labels, and the thing which unifies them is the difference in intent (both from those participating in the relationship and those interacting with the participants) invoked by use of the standard terms.

(If this is a bit convoluted to explain, it's partially because the way I'm actually thinking of it is in terms of Perl (yes, I'm aware of the geekitude inherent in that statement), where just about any collection of stuff can be 'Blessed' to be an Object, as long as it can fulfill the expected interfacing within its context)

This is not as much of a trivial argument as it might seem; I'm not so much saying "a boyfriend is whomever you call a boyfriend" as "the mentality tied to using the term boyfriend justifies its use."

[siderea]

(If this is a bit convoluted to explain, it's partially because the way I'm actually thinking of it is in terms of Perl (yes, I'm aware of the geekitude inherent in that statement), where just about any collection of stuff can be 'Blessed' to be an Object, as long as it can fulfill the expected interfacing within its context)

*Snrk!* You rock. :)

[oddharmonic.livejournal.com]

What separates friends-with-benefits from boyfriend/girlfriend for me is whether I'd introduce them to my family.

I think it's an individual definition.

[jargo.livejournal.com]

I prefer something along the line of the Webster definition.

Main Entry: boyfriend
Pronunciation: 'boi-"frend
Function: noun
1 : a male friend
2 : a frequent or regular male companion of a girl or woman
3 : a male lover

Main Entry: girlfriend
Pronunciation: 'g&r(-&)l-"frend
Function: noun
1 : a female friend
2 : a frequent or regular female companion of a boy or man
3 : MISTRESS

I actually had an argument with a girlfriend(as in definition one) over this one. She accused me of torpedoing her relationship with a guy she just started dating when I introduced him as her boyfriend. Apparently he was a commitmentphobe, freaked out, and ran screaming for the hills. My response was that we live in the adult world and we have words to define committed, exclusive relationships. I've always considered marriage as such(though I hear that's falling on the wayside). If he's too immature to understand this, then she would be better off without him.

Anyways, I think it's more up to the individual on what those words mean to them. Just don't be surprised if someone else defines it differently.

Also, am I the only one who dislikes the phrase "Friend with Benefits"? It sounds cold to me, almost like a business relationship.

-jargo

[juldea.livejournal.com]

But the Webster definitions are so broad...

I would kick that guy in the nuts. If someone refers to my relationship in a manner that I disagree with, I will correct them. I won't assume that their words have any impact on my relationship... Now, if she had used 'boyfriend' before he wanted her to, and it were discussed that that was what she wanted and he didn't, then he's justified in leaving. But not because of what you said.

I have no problem with 'Friends with Benefits.' To me, cold would be 'booty call,' or 'fuckbuddy.' ;)

Similar to what's been said above

[crazybone.livejournal.com]

Friends with benefits has limits put on it, usually unspoken or
vague, but the gist is "this is fun and all but, it's not going to
get serious". Dating is a crap shoot. It's "let's see what happens
and let the chips fall where they may."
However, the line between the two can get pretty blurry
and sometimes disappear entirely.

[oakleaf-mirror.livejournal.com]

I think the answer to this is both deeply individual, and culturally imposed. Where we each draw the line at a point that makes sense to us will probably be different from others. Yet to state of boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't exist in a vacuum, and others might or might not ascribe the same meaning to it that you do. Particularly given siderea's point about the label representing a transition in social categorization, our own definitions of the word have to be balanced against the social consensus definition.

I think alexx_kay, shogunhb, ratbastrd and siderea have all made points that resonated with me. As for your question of drawing a distinction between friend-with-benefits and boyfriend/girlfriend, I think I have an easier time of that purely through old-fashioned prudishness. There, I'd say at least past a certain point, how good the 'benefits' are is the difference, in that I don't generally associate those sorts of physical intimacies with friends. In other words, once those benefits cross a certain line, the toggle is switched from 'friend' to 'boyfriend.'

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Nod, the differences in what different people consider acceptible benefits to share with 'friends' and 'boyfriends' certainly makes a case for the definition to be individualized, doesn't it? :)

For now, a short response

[flyingindie.livejournal.com]

To me, friends-with-benefits are looking around for something (someone) better. They'd like to find a "soul mate," but are still searching and enjoying themselves in the meantime.

Boyfriends/girlfriends are ideally not still shopping around, and are trying to see if they have indeed finally found the perfect mate.

Re: For now, a short response

[flyingindie.livejournal.com]

Then again, I am probably the token prude in this conversation.

from experience

[manamakeri.livejournal.com]

I've had both a serious boyfriend and a friend with benefits. First of all, it all depends on how you personally define it. You know exactly how you relate to someone. You may not ever relate to anyone in a way that the general public defines as a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, and to try and fit your relationship into a category based on anyone else's definitions will only cause confusion and stress. It is good that there is a general definition of the boyfriend/girlfriend relationship so that when we interact with couples we can form some basic assumptions to facilitate understanding given situations. However, every relationship is different, and while the generally accepted definition will provide an outline for understanding someone else's relationship, you can never really understand their relationship because of the individuality of each relationship.

That being said, here is how I defined my relationships. My friend with benefits was someone for whom I did not feel a romantic interest. I had no desire to be committed to him or for the relationship to progress any further. I expected only what one expects of a friend, and sex. We hung out, ate dinner, went to movies, and had sex. That was about the extent of it. He was someone to have a good time with. We never talked about feelings. I didn't count on him for support. I had no interest in making a life with him or having his children. I was fine with it as long as it lasted, but I was always looking for someone for whom I did feel something. Also, he could have (and was) screwing other girls, and I didn't care at all. That to me told me that he was just a friend with benefits because I tend to be a monogamous person. I expect faithfulness in a relationship.

I have for the past year been involved in a serious relationship with someone I call my boyfriend. When we first met, we dated for about a month. Then I started referring to him as my boyfriend, before that he was "the guy I'm seeing." For me the distinction was that I had no desire to date anyone else at the time, and I was romantically interested in him. I felt something for him... a connection, a spark, an interest that went beyond what one feels for a friend. I wasn't even all that sexually attracted to him at first, but I wanted to get to know him better. I didn't want him dating anyone else during this time. Eventually, his happiness became very important to me. I began to feel love for him. Making a life with him became important to me (so he moved in three months after we starting dating heehee). What I feel for him is meaningful enough that I will move with him when he has to leave Oklahoma (damn air force).

It's something that is hard to put into words because it's a feeling which can't really be described. Maybe it is different for everyone. For me the romantic feeling, the spark, the connection that you feel for a boyfriend doesn't exist at all for a friend with benefits. This feeling is what the relationship is based on. From this feeling comes the expectations. I expect him to be faithful to the terms of our relationship the way we define it (not necessarily how the rest of the world thinks the dynamics of our relationship should function). We aren't your typical boyfriend/girlfriend. We split everything (chores and shared bills) 50/50. We do everything (shopping, laundry, et cetera) as a couple. No chores are based on gender in our house. We both do dishes, cook, take out the trash, clean the cat litter. We discuss everything before we do it, and we support each other in what we each want to do with our lives. We negotiate and compromise. We are building a life together. We aren't just having fun (although we do have lots of fun together).

Re: from experience

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Sorry this took me so long to respond to! After a while all the responses to this post built up so much that they just sat in my inbox and I did nothing about any of them... hehe.

I'm very happy to hear that you've found someone. :) Also, when discussing the friend with benefits, were you discussing who I think you were? (Not saying names just in case...)

I wish we had words to describe the 'spark.' It's the one part of all of this that defies definition. "You know it when you're in it!" is a crappy definition! ;)