![[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 12:04 (UTC)...
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. ;)
no subject
on 25 Mar 2004 12:51 (UTC)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
no subject
on 25 Mar 2004 15:48 (UTC)