![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juldeaWhat'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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 25 Mar 2004 09:57 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 25 Mar 2004 10:55 (UTC)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?
no subject
on 25 Mar 2004 11:30 (UTC)If you would have asked me yesterday I would have said that I would know because they would complete me. However, I had a long conversation with a friend of mine last night about myself, my divorce, and my future. She stated that I need to be able to be happy with myself and accept myself for who I am and not live for someone else. I need to be able to live for me. So know I would say that it would have to be someone who does not complete me because I hope to be able to complete myself one day...It would have to be someone that compliments me.
Laff! Prolly not the answer you are looking for. Sorry...right now going through a divorce and everything has kinda made me off kilter when it comes to love and dating. It's hard to answer in anything but generalities.
no subject
on 25 Mar 2004 11:37 (UTC)