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]

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.