Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ray
From: ray@utcsrgv.UUCP (Raymond Allen)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: friendships with SO's
Message-ID: <597@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 15:48:32 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.597
Posted: Mon Dec 17 15:48:32 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 16:34:39 EST
References: <344@hercules.UUCP> <608@rayssd.UUCP> <2551@sdcc3.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 66

From sdcc3!fritzz:
> Is it really possible to break
> off a relationship like that without remebering all the wonderful things
> that happened between two people? Or is it that I'm expecting people to
> develop something deeper than a mere physical attraction when they start
> "going out"?
> Obviously it's possible to continue a relationship after a relationship.
> What I'd like to know is why it is so rare, and why people don't try to
> do it more often.

It certainly is possible.  I broke up an engagement with a woman
about 2 years ago.  We have remained close friends to this day.
The vital difference between this relationship and those I've had
with other women was that both of us had a friendship that extended
far beyond the romantic and sexual.  Even though we had to face the
fact that we couldn't get married (at least for the time being) we
both agreed that the time we had spent together (and could continue to
spend together) was just too valuable to throw away in a
fit of emotional pique.

In my opinion, this experience (and the googol of more or less successful
experiences which I have heard about) underlines what has got to be the
most frustrating dilemma that occurs between individuals.  The issue
of "friends" vs. "more than friends".  EVERYONE has had the experience
of being attracted to someone (romantically, that is) and being told
that "we're just friends" or "I don't feel that way about you".
What can be done about this?  Hell, I don't know, but I'll toss some
personal observations and inferences onto the net traffic just for fun:

I seem to observe that there is a significant difference between what
people desire, expect from, etc. from their friends and from their
SO's (isn't that brilliant? :-) ).  It is my conjecture, however, that
these criteria are sometimes defective or ill-chosen ESPECIALLY in the
case of the SO.  It has always been my personal belief that a solid
friendship is an absolute necessity as a basis for any romantic
relationship.  Now I'm sure that my terminal is going to rock with
responses claiming, in effect:  "Of course I know that!  I am always
close friends with my SO."  OK, but my suggestion is that wheras people
always claim that such is the case, they do not actually put such
opinions into action as effectively as they might.

I can't really speak for anyone on the net, but much personal experience
with myself and my friends has suggested that many people have
a real double standard for friends and SO's.  By far the worst thing
people do is to decide that a person is a candidate for romantic
affection on the basis of a "tingle" or some other type of transient
emotional reaction.  This is REALLY DUMB.  Would you choose all your
friends this way?  I doubt it.  People tend to take too emotional
an approach towards choosing a SO.  They refuse to look at a situation
rationally and try to understand what are the dynamics between themselves
and their SO.  I personally feel that if you cannot satisfy yourself
that you could become close, lasting friends with this individual then
you are courting disaster by trying to turn them into a romantic
object.  Why?  Because during the times when your gonads are in remission,
when all the hype and emotional highs are lows, you're going to need
all the trust and faith you can muster between the two of you in
order to have your relationship survive.  Such stuff is also the
main ingredient in any solid friendship.

I've rambled on enough.  If anyone reacts to this I'll be glad to
discuss this subject more.

				Let the jousting begin:

					Ray Allen
					utcsrgv!ray