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

[gower.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's such a thing as a universal definition for such a nebulous concept. "Exclusivity" is too an acceptable answer. It just may not acceptable for you.

That's a pretty obvious thing to say, so I suspect what you really want to know goes deeper than that.

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that there is a universal concept of love. Also even the word love is nebulous. The Greeks had several words for the different types of love. I think it is a shame that the English language is woefully inadequate in this measure. I have friends who I love in a platonical fashion, but yet I feel uncomfortable simply saying, "I love you." Then there is eros which would be more along the lines of lust, but I think eros love is more like friends with benefits (at least in my mind). Then there is agape. To me that is more along the lines of true love. To me it means giving yourself wholly to another individual. No secrets...no mind games...no taking advantage of anything. Equals...in essence two becoming one.

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.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Er, you just made the distinction: a friend vs. a loved one. Or rather, I suppose, you've reduced the distinction to the distinction between someone you like and someone you love. So, what's that mean to you? The interpretation I like best:

“Love” is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

—Jubal Harshaw, in Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land

In practice, though, people seem to say "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" even when things are well short of this sort of love. I would sometimes be cynical enough to say that, in practice, a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" is someone to whom your primary relationship is the sexual relationship, as opposed to a "friend with benefits" where they're still your friend independent of the benefits.

[jester-king.livejournal.com]

Dating is simply an agreement between two people that they are romantically involved and are more than just friends.

[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'."

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

So that's</> where I got that from! I've used that as my personal definition of "love" for ages, but had quite forgotten where I'd first encountered it. Neat!

[shogunhb.livejournal.com]

It's very simple. Friends-with-benefits is a planned dead end. You say "This is what it is and nothing more". Dating is open ended. Dating implies a testing period leading perhaps to something more. It's between friends and love. It's potential.

[ratbastrd.livejournal.com]

Personally I'd have to say that the difference between "friend+" and "girlfriend (or boyfriend)" is that with the latter, even if "in love" isn't the operative term yet, the potential is there. I'mprobably old fashioned in this, but dating is at least a search for real love, rather than just good company and orgasms, as far as I've alwasy been concerned. I won't and can't think of someone as an actual "girlfriend" unless I can see at least the possibility of a real future wutg that person. So I guess the defining differnece to me would be the perception of at least a potential future with that person.

This is probabyl an individualized definition. I don't know how anyone else thinks...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's obvious to you, but the reason I'm asking is because I've found no response to be obvious anymore. Therefore, what you said is indeed part of what I want to know.

Thanks for responding. :)

(and for reminding me that I was misspelling 'acceptable' by spelling it correctly)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I'm not discounting the things you said as unimportant, they didn't answer my question at all. However, I think I can reform the question for you based on some of the things you said.

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?

[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.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Hehe. Mistype! :)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Well then, define 'romantically involved.' :P

[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?

[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.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

...

I like this. I will give it thought.

Thanks.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, as you say, "This is probably an individualized definition," your comment is posted right under another which gives the same definition. Hehe.

And I'll say the same thing to you as I said to him: I like this definition, and will give it much thought. Thanks. :)

you = hammer. nail. hit. head.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

What I was going to say, only succinctly.

[jester-king.livejournal.com]

romantically involved means they see each other socialy, remember anniversaries, bring flowers/candy on Valentines stuff like that, or none of that, like I said it's an agreement between the people

Re: you = hammer. nail. hit. head.

[shogunhb.livejournal.com]

Too often I muddy my own thoughts and points with caveats and subjective asides. Occassionally I manage to make a point however.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

But what you're saying means that there is no standard, and anything, provided it is agreed upon between the two people involved, can be considered dating.

So you and I could decide that mutual hate and spitting in each other's face when we see one another is going to be our definition of dating... Why we would, I dunno, but we could. And since that was our agreement, it'd be dating, even though it's blatantly opposite of what the accepted norms are?

[jester-king.livejournal.com]

pretty much, I'm not real big on normative judgements

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

That's a good question...For me if I was dating someone (and I am assuming that this has been a realtionship of at least several weeks and dates) they would first and foremost be a friend. How would I know if it was going to be beyond just friendship? That's hard to say without being there...at least for me. For me it's hard to put in words because it deals with emotions that are not easily defined by words.

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.

I may be weird, but so are you, so let's move on...

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Is this definition universal, or does each individual have to define it for him/herself?

Universal anythings tend to bother me. That word never seems to mean what I think it means, which suggest even universal isn't a universal term. But I digress...

I've never seen or been in a relationship that was quite the same as another. As such, titles that define or quantify have to be agreed on. Yes, society places certain values on words, but terminology isn't fixed. Individuals defy societal values automatically anyway. In the end, the couple must decide what these terms mean and share their views as they see fit. Just remember that social circles sometimes push back.

My experience has been that the terms usually imply a level of commitment and some societal bond. (Would you introduce a lover as "my chewtoy" to your parents?) It may also imply dating with no known end in sight.

And for a good period term, use "my leman". A fun phrase from Chaucer.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Okay then. Just wanted to be clear. :)