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

[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.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

I've never had occasion to use the word boyfriend or girlfriend to describe someone I was in a relationship with, so I'm talking about what I seem to observe in others.

My own path seems to mostly involve fooling around with friends and occasionally becoming serious lovers (and then going back to friends with benefits except when they become bitter enemies), whereas others apparently do this thing where they "date" strangers or acquantances, then become boyfriend and girlfriend, then either break up or become serious lovers/get engaged.

To me, the second path is distinguished from the first mostly by the fact that "boyfriend/girlfriend" is a state that comes about when you've decided you like dating (i.e., fucking and/or hanging out with with the goal of eventually fucking) the person, but doesn't necessarily imply that they're as close as your real friends. Serious lovers are as close as close friends or closer, and also have or want sex a lot. Boyfriend and girlfriend may or may not be close, but definitely either have or want sex. Boyfriend and girlfriend may often break up by saying "let's be friends", but tend to actually mean "let's be acquaintances" or "let's be strangers". Serious lovers, if they ever break up, may become friends or enemies or whatever, but never something so emotionally empty as acquaintances or strangers.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

But you don't see a state where people date (sex, hanging out, whatever) and are as close as friends but aren't lovers?

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Well, that could be "friends with benefits", but a little less casual; and I wouldn't look at you funny if you called it boyfriend/girlfriend. But it seems to me that the normal use of boyfriend/girlfriend in our society does describe something where genuine friendship is secondary and optional.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Either my view of the world is skewed, or we have drastically different circumstances. As far as I know, being friends first is an integral part of a boy/girlfriend relationship.

[siderea]

en_ki has a point. If you observe people's behaviors, instead of what they say, many people seem to behave as if they weren't good friends with their bf/gf.

I think it is even more true, outside the circles you and I run in, that being friends first is not an integral part of the boy/girlfriend relationship. People who go looking for love in clubs and bars are not putting friendship first. People who use matchmaking services are not putting friendship first, even though they may be hell-bent on marriage as the only successful outcome.

I have been in four Adult Relationships(tm) (#4 being the current one), of which the first three I would characterize as pretty typical bf/gf (well, as typical as I ever get. :) In not one of those four did I have much more than an acquaintanceship before deciding to explore A Relationship. In all cases, friendship was explored simultaneously with bf/gf-ness. In cases 1, 2 and 3, men who had the opportunity to observe me (through the SCA) approached me and asked if I'd be interested in Getting To Know One Another Better.

I am not close friends with my exes, but #1 and #2 and I still get along. #1 is a musician I am in a consort with, and #2 is my boss. :) (#3 hates my guts.)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Most of my relationships have been 'friends first, decide to explore further potential later.' However, in my current relationship the friend+ship only existed briefly before we gave up and admitted that we were bf/gf too. ;) We just were both very paranoid about making sure that each other was, "Juldea, who happens to be my girlfriend," and not, "My girlfriend, who happens to be Juldea."

It will be interesting to see if this relationship survives better than the previous, given that the two aspects are being explored together. (The previous time I dated someone without being friends first was five years ago!) There are no pre-set expectations based on how our relationship has always been, so as we learn things about each other we are learning them in the context of the boy/girlfriend relationship. I think it has colored the experience so far, and not in a bad way.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Actually, now that I look at it, my earlier post does describe that exact situation: it's possible, but I don't get the impression that it's necessary or even the norm.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I certainly know people who would balk at it, saying that creates too high a level of dependency.

True. Actually, on further thought, once the recognition faded, I realized that that wasnt quite my definition. I substitute the word "important" for "essential". This allows for a scalar measurement; the amount of love I bear towards someone is proportional to the amount that their happiness makes me happy.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Still, I consider that too dependent. I would change the definition rather to something about how much I care and how much effort I would expend to ensure their happiness. Outside of a general, "It'd be nice if all people in the world were happy," I think there is variation in how much time, effort, and emotion people will invest in the happiness of others.

...

and yet as I type this, I ask myself why one would invest such time and effort and care, if the other's happiness didn't affect your own.

Brain spinny, too much to contemplate at work, will continue later. ;)

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I ask myself why one would invest such time and effort and care, if the other's happiness didn't affect your own.

And so we come back to Heinlein once again. I guess I get a lot of my practical moral philosophy from him.

"Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity.
Altruism is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
If tempted to do something that feels "altruistic," examine your
motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want
to do it, wallow in it!" -- RAH

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I really, really like that quote. I'm a big altruism-is-evil person, which is why I stopped myself in the middle of that last comment. ;)

Is love then only compersion?

[siderea]

Hmmm. I think compersion is necessary for love, but not sufficient. I am compersionate towards people I do not feel love for. Indeed, I can be compersionate towards strangers.

I think that "essential" is necessary there, for that to be a definition of love.

Is it dependency? Or interdependency?

Re: Is love then only compersion?

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

compersion

[Alexx googles...] Cool! Didn't know there was a word for it. Although at least some people seem to use it in a narrower, more poly-focused sense of "the love you feel when others feel love". Still, a useful word.

I feel that it is sufficient, because I want a definition of "love" that, while somewhat narrower than general usage, is still very versatile. For instance, my definition allows usage such as "Love thy neighbor" even (as is often the case) if that neighbor is a stranger to me.

Re: Is love then only compersion?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

After all, 'essential' is just a very strong form of 'important.'