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

[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?

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

the same kind of commitment made tacitly between good friends

You may some day discover that such "tacitly" made "commitments" are often not what you think they are. To the extent that such tacit agreement works, it's because both parties are following the cultural "defaults".

Is it the verbal expression of the commitment that makes it different than just a friendship?

Possibly. Now, many western subcultures subsume tons of tacic commitment into the statement "I love you" -- which is one of the reasons that I consider it A Dangerous Statement. One of its many generally-accepted meanings is essentially contractual, but without a very clear definition of the contract's terms.

But I'm stalling, because your inital question was, in fact, the hard one.

Commitment to what?

I've been sitting here for several minutes trying to come up with the right way to answer this. I've reached the provisional conclusion that "commitment" was perhaps a poorly-chosen word on my part. I think "dependability" or "trust" may be closer to what I mean.

I do think that the difference between acquaintance, friend, close friend, and loved one is a matter of degree more than kind. "A friend is someone who helps you move. A Real Friend is someone who helps you move -- a body."

No, "commitment" is exactly the right word

[siderea]

Commitment to what?

To the relationship!

A common presumption with friends+ is that if it doesn't work out, or if something better comes along, c'est la vie.

But a common presumption of gf/bf is that the two parties will work to overcome difficulties and attempt to stick together and mend what is broken.

Moving from the anthropological to the personal, one of the things which came up between tn3270 and I in our relationship negotiations is that we commited to attempting to solve problems and talk them over, not just conclude "it's not working" and bail.

Careful use of words

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

No, "commitment" is exactly the right word

In the context of "what I meant to say", I think I get to be definitive. (And it's largely because of your insistence on that principle that I use a lot more "seems to me" in my writing lately :-)

To elaborate, I was thinking about juldea's question, "Is it the verbal expression of the commitment that makes it different than just a friendship?" While my initial reaction was "yes", the more I thought about, the more I realized it wasn't true. While I value explicit negotiation as an ideal, I don't tend to actually do very much of it in my relationships with those I love. When I think of what actually makes those relationships strong, it's definiely not "commitment", at least not in any explicitly negotiated or verbal sense.

When I tried to think what was the strength of those relationships, I came up with "dependability" or "trust". Perhaps only a subtle difference, but important to me.

[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.