Friend Zoning

[NotFluffy]

I've been hearing about this a lot lately and being asexual and never as of yet being in a romantic relationship I "friend zone" about everyone.

Oops~

I feel that being "just friends" for me and being "just friends" for my sexual friends are two very different things.

I'd like to hear more about it from you guys. What do you think of friend zoning ?

Is it really that bad to be friends and never going further ?

I've had guys when I told them I did that

[Guest]

I've been hearing about this a lot lately and being asexual and never as of yet being in a romantic relationship I "friend zone" about everyone.

Oops~

I feel that being "just friends" for me and being "just friends" for my sexual friends are two very different things.

I'd like to hear more about it from you guys. What do you think of friend zoning ?

Is it really that bad to be friends and never going further ?

I've had guys when I told them I did that

"Just friends" is only different to you and your sexual friends who have a sexual interest in you. The other friends you have who happen to be sexual share your understanding of your mutual friendship.

Is it really that bad? yeah, sometimes. There are some people I can't be friends with. I like them too much, and all it does it make me sad when we hang out. Some people are better at letting that go than others... I am definitely not good at it.

[Touchofinsight]

I've been hearing about this a lot lately and being asexual and never as of yet being in a romantic relationship I "friend zone" about everyone.

Oops~

I feel that being "just friends" for me and being "just friends" for my sexual friends are two very different things.

I'd like to hear more about it from you guys. What do you think of friend zoning ?

Is it really that bad to be friends and never going further ?

I've had guys when I told them I did that

"Just friends" is only different to you and your sexual friends who have a sexual interest in you. The other friends you have who happen to be sexual share your understanding of your mutual friendship.

Is it really that bad? yeah, sometimes. There are some people I can't be friends with. I like them too much, and all it does it make me sad when we hang out. Some people are better at letting that go than others... I am definitely not good at it.

Friend zoning (in my experience) is when usually a sexual male pursues a sexual relationship with a women and then she tells him oh I just want to be friends. That is completely legit it is just like any relationship that would be, when it doesn't turn out its upsetting. So this term is just a quick way of explaining a common occurrence in a simple way, rather then explaining it in detail. Example Guy friend B asks his buddy hey what happened with that girl you were dating? and he replies, friend zoned. In most cases Friend B knows what happens and they don't have to go into detail about it and generally don't.

This comes into play because the two things most sexual men pursue women for is affection and sex, everything else can be obtained through his network of friends.

[Philip027]

I feel that being "just friends" for me and being "just friends" for my sexual friends are two very different things.

Yep, I'm the same way. For many people they talk about being friendzoned like it's a bad thing, whereas I'm just sitting there thinking "... what's wrong with having friends?"

[Touchofinsight]

I feel that being "just friends" for me and being "just friends" for my sexual friends are two very different things.

Yep, I'm the same way. For many people they talk about being friendzoned like it's a bad thing, whereas I'm just sitting there thinking "... what's wrong with having friends?"

For those people it means they wont be having sex. you don't have sex with friends. It is okay for them to feel that way too, they didn't spend energy and time to pursue a friendship they wanted a relationship that involved sex most likely. Are there some cases that didn't have sex as the spearheaded motivation, sure but I think those would be in the minority.

[Neighbor]

What Skullery said. Every word of it. "Lets just be friends" or "I think of you as a really good friend"....there's a reason those lines appear so many times in movies. Cuz it causes half the audience to cringe. It's really that bad, for just the reasons Skullery mentions.

[Siggy]

I feel like "friend zone" is often mentioned in the context of some guy lamenting the fact that girls aren't romantically interested in him, even though he is such a nice guy. Isn't he so nice, settling for friendship when he really wanted sex or romance? Yes, he treasures those friendships, he is grateful for having the opportunity to be in the friend zone even though that's not really what he meant to achieve by being nice to women. <_<

I think "friend zone" has very negative connotations, and is associated with negative attitudes. But if it weren't for its context, I would have thought it a positive term. The friend zone is the best zone!

[Awkward Turtle]

I've been "friend zoned" a number of times, and you know what? If you respect the person, and you did consider them a friend before you were interested in them, or actively pursuing them, then it's not that big a deal. Sure, it's disappointing, because someone you like doesn't feel the same way, but it's not the worst thing.

What hurts more is when someone tells you something like, "I think of you as a really good friend," and you can accept that but then they withdraw from you and effectively end your friendship with awkwardness. To me, that's sort of indicated that in the end they didn't actually value the friendship that much...in which case, if up to the point where I announced intent we were hanging out a lot or connecting in that "really good friend" way, was I really misinterpreting it as something other than friendship? Maybe it's repeated experiences like that, which can be frustrating, that lead to this "friend zone" idea as being a negative, if you're then waiting for the other shoe to drop and to lose the friend you'd been into. Just a thought.

[maven]

I've been hearing about this a lot lately and being asexual and never as of yet being in a romantic relationship I "friend zone" about everyone.

Oops~

I feel that being "just friends" for me and being "just friends" for my sexual friends are two very different things.

I'd like to hear more about it from you guys. What do you think of friend zoning ?

Is it really that bad to be friends and never going further ?

I've had guys when I told them I did that

It's not bad at all to do that. I do it often, probably more than I need to, but I'm a little paranoid - I don't want anyone to think I'm interested in them. It's better to be friends and tell them that you just want to be friends than leave them hanging on, thinking that maybe you'll want more later down the road.

[*Moon*]

As a romantic asexual I think it would be equivalent to me wanting a romantic but not sexual relationship with someone and them telling me they didn't see me in that aspect. I think that would hurt and that is what friend zoning is like.

There is a meme somewhere on the internet that I can't find <_< that explains that friend zoning is like going to a job interview and being told that you have a great resume but they aren't going to hire you, however they will use your resume to compare other applicants. They will hire someone else who might be less qualified and possibly an alcoholic and when that doesn't work out they will hire someone else, but again not you. In fact it will never be you, but they may call you from time to time to complain about the person they did hire.

[NotFluffy]

Moon << I have seen that definition of Friend Zoning (the job interview, thought it was awesome), though as someone who will never have that kind of relationship it seems exaggerated that because you feel a way the other person as to feel the same ?

Though it is as if there are 2 kinds of friend zone. The "real" Friend zone and the "I like to go around with other guys/gals but keep you to cry about it later" friend zone. ... ?

[*Moon*]

It is a bit exaggerated and unfair to demand the other person feel the same.

oh I think there is only one friend zone. The real friend zone. The other zone is for when person A likes person B and person B says "no I only think of you as a friend." Person B wants person A to remain just a friend, if person A can get over there feelings then an awesome friendship can be had. But apparently for some people when they are person A they can't get over their feelings and continue to have desires for more and the whole interview analogy is representative of how they feel where they either stick around with the desire for more and are therefore considered "stuck in the friend zone" or they leave.

Does that help any?

[NotFluffy]

A lot even!

And then I bring up the awesome discussion that is:

Which is better, friendship or love ? (Yes love can mean many things but in this discussion we are only talking about love that is not family/friendship/etc)

I've had a lot of people tell me that love is a "level" above friendship, while I view Friendship on the same level.

Like in your example, Person A could be thinking that staying as Friends is not getting the better of the relationship hence person B is afraid of getting further in it, while person B could think it would only make it worse... or something like that ?

[Guest]

A lot even!

And then I bring up the awesome discussion that is:

Which is better, friendship or love ? (Yes love can mean many things but in this discussion we are only talking about love that is not family/friendship/etc)

I've had a lot of people tell me that love is a "level" above friendship, while I view Friendship on the same level.

Like in your example, Person A could be thinking that staying as Friends is not getting the better of the relationship hence person B is afraid of getting further in it, while person B could think it would only make it worse... or something like that ?

If its the case that Person B thinks the relationship just won't last... like, they realize that they both want different things out of life, one wants kids and the other doesn't, they have different religions and that will never be resolved... under those conditions someone may say "I want to be friends because, for us, friends will work better".

You don't really see anyone say "friendship is better than love, so lets just stay friends". IMO, if you are romantically inclined, love IS a step above friendship. With friends, you love them and hope for the best, but you are separate people. When you're a couple, you become "we". You experience their joy and their heartbreak, you share everything with them, you journey thru life with each other, you put your life, happiness, safety, and stability in their hands... it is at least a step above friendship.

[NotFluffy]

If its the case that Person B thinks the relationship just won't last... like, they realize that they both want different things out of life, one wants kids and the other doesn't, they have different religions and that will never be resolved... under those conditions someone may say "I want to be friends because, for us, friends will work better".

You don't really see anyone say "friendship is better than love, so lets just stay friends". IMO, if you are romantically inclined, love IS a step above friendship. With friends, you love them and hope for the best, but you are separate people. When you're a couple, you become "we".

That is true, for people who are, as you say, romantically inclined.

What I do not see though is that you will think Friends cannot have that same kind of relationship as loved ones. Though I mean this with 2 (or more) people that want to be friends, not one sided.

Trust in your friends or loved one(s) is what makes this :

You experience their joy and their heartbreak, you share everything with them, you journey thru life with each other, you put your life, happiness, safety, and stability in their hands... it is at least a step above friendship.

"We" also exist in Friendship, but it is of a different kind. It get less of the negative, though it has different ones, and as much of the positive. The difference is that Friends can live apart without the kind of jealousy love will bring, or so that is what I think is what makes long distance relationship difficult ?

Though if I continue on this I think I'll end up talking more about asexuality and it is not really the point of the subject :X

[Nogitsune]

I may have said this before, but I don't think there's a universal difference between romance and friendship. What is friendship to me might be romance if experienced by another person, and the other way round.

A lot of people who experience romantic attraction will put their romantic relationships first, yes - but this is not the case for all people who experience romantic attraction. In the eyes of society, though, there exists a relationship hierarchy here that supposedly applies to everyone, and that's a problem.

Regardless of romantic or sexual orientation, people can feel very differently about "the same" kinds of love, and that's okay.

[Guest]

I may have said this before, but I don't think there's a universal difference between romance and friendship. What is friendship to me might be romance if experienced by another person, and the other way round.

A lot of people who experience romantic attraction will put their romantic relationships first, yes - but this is not the case for all people who experience romantic attraction. In the eyes of society, though, there exists a relationship hierarchy here that supposedly applies to everyone, and that's a problem.

Regardless of romantic or sexual orientation, people can feel very differently about "the same" kinds of love, and that's okay.

It may not be true of everyone, but those who put friends first and a partner second are few and far between. And I don't mean someone you've dated for a month. I don't know many (OK, I don't know ANY) people who would put a friend in front of a spouse unless they didn't really love their spouse anymore.

I was going to write "as an idea, friendships having greater priority sounds good"... but you know what? No it doesn't. it doesn't sound bad, but it doesn't sound good either... there's nothing better or more morally sound about choosing friends over your partner.

I would also submit that there IS a universality to the difference between romantic relationships and friendships. You can go to any continent and hang out with any culture at any time during the existence of humanity and you see very similar relationship patterns. The friendship/ romantic relationship dichotomy is one of the most universal cultural aspects of humanity, right up there with mother/child bonding.

[maven]

I would also submit that there IS a universality to the difference between romantic relationships and friendships. You can go to any continent and hang out with any culture at any time during the existence of humanity and you see very similar relationship patterns. The friendship/ romantic relationship dichotomy is one of the most universal cultural aspects of humanity, right up there with mother/child bonding.

I spent a summer visiting a friend and her family in India when I was in college and it seemed like their views of romance and friendship are different from ours. Her mother appeared much closer to her neighbors and friends than she did to her husband - she spent more time talking to them, smiling, and laughing while her interactions with her husband appeared more submissive and stilted. In turn, her husband appeared to be closer with his friends and work colleagues than his wife or children. Part of this may be because all of the married couples I met had had an arranged marriage, or part of it could be due to different personalities, but it seemed like all of them were closer to same gender friends and other family members than they were with their spouses. I suppose you could argue that there isn't much romance in an arranged marriage, but arranged marriages today are very different from the cold, calculated political ones in the old days. Two people are introduced and they have the choice to date, if they agree then they date and if they agree, they get married. There are a lot more options and openings for romance in an arranged marriage than is generally perceived by the Western world.

[Guest]

I would also submit that there IS a universality to the difference between romantic relationships and friendships. You can go to any continent and hang out with any culture at any time during the existence of humanity and you see very similar relationship patterns. The friendship/ romantic relationship dichotomy is one of the most universal cultural aspects of humanity, right up there with mother/child bonding.

I spent a summer visiting a friend and her family in India when I was in college and it seemed like their views of romance and friendship are different from ours. Her mother appeared much closer to her neighbors and friends than she did to her husband - she spent more time talking to them, smiling, and laughing while her interactions with her husband appeared more submissive and stilted. In turn, her husband appeared to be closer with his friends and work colleagues than his wife or children. Part of this may be because all of the married couples I met had had an arranged marriage, or part of it could be due to different personalities, but it seemed like all of them were closer to same gender friends and other family members than they were with their spouses. I suppose you could argue that there isn't much romance in an arranged marriage, but arranged marriages today are very different from the cold, calculated political ones in the old days. Two people are introduced and they have the choice to date, if they agree then they date and if they agree, they get married. There are a lot more options and openings for romance in an arranged marriage than is generally perceived by the Western world.

My caveat of unless they're no longer in love with their spouse holds. Is it any surprise that couples in arranged marriages may not be especially close? I have an Iranian friend who has refused an arrangement, but her sister went ahead with it... her sister fell deeply in love with the guy and they lived happily ever after.

I think what you're demonstrating here is that marriage has different meanings in different cultures. Marriage and love aren't the same thing, though.

[maven]

I would also submit that there IS a universality to the difference between romantic relationships and friendships. You can go to any continent and hang out with any culture at any time during the existence of humanity and you see very similar relationship patterns. The friendship/ romantic relationship dichotomy is one of the most universal cultural aspects of humanity, right up there with mother/child bonding.

I spent a summer visiting a friend and her family in India when I was in college and it seemed like their views of romance and friendship are different from ours. Her mother appeared much closer to her neighbors and friends than she did to her husband - she spent more time talking to them, smiling, and laughing while her interactions with her husband appeared more submissive and stilted. In turn, her husband appeared to be closer with his friends and work colleagues than his wife or children. Part of this may be because all of the married couples I met had had an arranged marriage, or part of it could be due to different personalities, but it seemed like all of them were closer to same gender friends and other family members than they were with their spouses. I suppose you could argue that there isn't much romance in an arranged marriage, but arranged marriages today are very different from the cold, calculated political ones in the old days. Two people are introduced and they have the choice to date, if they agree then they date and if they agree, they get married. There are a lot more options and openings for romance in an arranged marriage than is generally perceived by the Western world.

My caveat of unless they're no longer in love with their spouse holds. Is it any surprise that couples in arranged marriages may not be especially close? I have an Iranian friend who has refused an arrangement, but her sister went ahead with it... her sister fell deeply in love with the guy and they lived happily ever after.

I think what you're demonstrating here is that marriage has different meanings in different cultures. Marriage and love aren't the same thing, though.

That's why I threw in the couple sentences at the end. I believe both spouses would argue that they are in love with each other. I didn't ask either of them, but something the father said makes me think that they do consider themselves in love. He was talking about the differences between arranged marriages and "love matches" and said that "In a love match you start the marriage in love while in an arranged marriage you grow to love each other." Perhaps what could be argued here is that "love" has different meanings in different cultures.

The other thing that probably has to be considered is the fact that I was an outsider, and may have been unable to pick up on a demonstration of higher love for a spouse than a friend in a different culture. If asked, it's possible the spouses would say that they loved each other more than their friends/family - it was only me viewing their interactions who thought differently.

[Musical Lottie]

It is a bit exaggerated and unfair to demand the other person feel the same.

oh I think there is only one friend zone. The real friend zone. The other zone is for when person A likes person B and person B says "no I only think of you as a friend." Person B wants person A to remain just a friend, if person A can get over there feelings then an awesome friendship can be had. But apparently for some people when they are person A they can't get over their feelings and continue to have desires for more and the whole interview analogy is representative of how they feel where they either stick around with the desire for more and are therefore considered "stuck in the friend zone" or they leave.

Does that help any?

As a romantic asexual I have been 'friend-zoned' once (although reading this thread was the first time I'd ever encountered the term!). I just wanted to weigh in: I think Person A needn't necessarily get over their feelings, rather, they need to come to terms with the fact that their feelings won't be reciprocated, and to be okay with that. I say this because I had romantic desires towards my friend for c.4 years before saying anything about it, and several months on I naturally still have those desires towards him. However, because I'm no longer hoping our friendship might develop into something romantic, I can just get on with appreciating our friendship instead of wasting energy hoping for more :)

(Although granted, I would likely feel differently if my situation were more analagous to the job interview previously mentioned.)

[Nogitsune]

It may not be true of everyone, but those who put friends first and a partner second are few and far between. And I don't mean someone you've dated for a month. I don't know many (OK, I don't know ANY) people who would put a friend in front of a spouse unless they didn't really love their spouse anymore.

I was going to write "as an idea, friendships having greater priority sounds good"... but you know what? No it doesn't. it doesn't sound bad, but it doesn't sound good either... there's nothing better or more morally sound about choosing friends over your partner.

I don't know about putting friendships before romantic relationships, but I've heard quite a few people say romantic relationships are not more important to them than close friendships.

I never said anything about putting friends first being "more moral", so I'm not sure what your point is there.

I would also submit that there IS a universality to the difference between romantic relationships and friendships. You can go to any continent and hang out with any culture at any time during the existence of humanity and you see very similar relationship patterns. The friendship/ romantic relationship dichotomy is one of the most universal cultural aspects of humanity, right up there with mother/child bonding.

What is that universal difference between friendship and romance then? To clarify, I'm talking about one that applies to all people rather than all cultures, which is what I meant by "universal". I personally really can't think of one - heck, even when it just comes to "all cultures", I can't think of any universal difference (except maybe when it comes to physical intimacy).

[Mismatched]

I think the reason that the phrase "friend zoned" is typically said in a negative connotation, is due to the fact that it is from the perspective of someone who has just been rejected romantically. Not that having friends is a negative thing, but being in a sense "demoted" from what you previously thought the relationship was, or being denied a chance to engage with a person in a more romantic sense (not even talking about sex) is typically perceived as a let down. People who "friend zone" others don't use the phrase friend zone, they just say "just friends" since that is all the relationship is to them and they might not perceive the hurt feelings of the other person, or they don't want to reciprocate or acknowledge those feelings.

So I think it is naturally that the phrase has a negative connotation because when someone says it they feel like their heart has been ripped out. If that doesn't deserve a negative connotation, I don't know what does. Kali ma... Kali maaa...

[Guest]

I don't know about putting friendships before romantic relationships, but I've heard quite a few people say romantic relationships are not more important to them than close friendships.

It's all well and good to say they're equal, but there's no such thing as equal. That lovely Indian couple, for example... what's the likelihood that the nice Indian lady would choose to stay in Mumbai and live with her neighbors rather than go with her husband to Bangalore, where his job was transferred to? And what's the likelihood that, if she doesn't go with them, that their marriage will continue on?

When push comes to shove and you have to choose one, I'm going to say again, I'm sure that in 99% of cases, assuming there's still an abundance of love, the romantic relationship will come before the friendship. I'm not saying that there's not occasional situations where people have strong, enduring friendships that really are prioritized over their romantic relationships... but those are very rare and much more likely in books and movies than in real life.

What I find odd is how upsetting this idea seems to be. Generally the point of a marriage is to build a life together, so its fairly obvious that most people are going to choose that life over a friendship, if they have to choose. I don't see why that's insulting or upsetting. If I had to choose, I'd choose my mom over my friend too, but I don't think my friends should feel badly about that.

[Nogitsune]

It's all well and good to say they're equal, but there's no such thing as equal. That lovely Indian couple, for example... what's the likelihood that the nice Indian lady would choose to stay in Mumbai and live with her neighbors rather than go with her husband to Bangalore, where his job was transferred to? And what's the likelihood that, if she doesn't go with them, that their marriage will continue on?

When push comes to shove and you have to choose one, I'm going to say again, I'm sure that in 99% of cases, assuming there's still an abundance of love, the romantic relationship will come before the friendship. I'm not saying that there's not occasional situations where people have strong, enduring friendships that really are prioritized over their romantic relationships... but those are very rare and much more likely in books and movies than in real life.

What I find odd is how upsetting this idea seems to be. Generally the point of a marriage is to build a life together, so its fairly obvious that most people are going to choose that life over a friendship, if they have to choose. I don't see why that's insulting or upsetting. If I had to choose, I'd choose my mom over my friend too, but I don't think my friends should feel badly about that.

This is a bit of a "lifeboat scenario", though, and people can make one choice rather than another for all kinds of reasons. If I had to choose between two family members and did, it would not automatically mean that I value one relationship more than the other - it could just be that the relationships or circumstances are different: I could be more comfortable living with my grandmother than my grandfather, but for reasons not related to how much I care about them. Same with friends or if someone has several romantic partners. I really don't think there needs to be a "hierarchy" to one's important relationships.

As for why it might be upsetting to be told that as "just a friend", it's pretty much a given that one will never be one of the most important people in the life of a romantic person - well, for me, it's being told that unless I happen to meet and befriend another aromantic person, I will always be the one more invested in the relationships I enter. I might actually want to "build a life together" with others, but chances are those people will be romantic while I am not. It would be upsetting for a lot of romantic people if they could never be as important to their partner(s) as the other way round, no? I'm not romantic, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in pursuing "relationships". Much the same probably goes for some or many other aromantic and WTFromantic people.

[faraway]

Telling someone you want to be just friend is actually the best possible case of friendzoning. The main problem with the friendzone is when it involves leading someone on. If you've been knowingly and openly friendzoned, you don't have it as bad as the people who have no idea they're in the friendzone, and instead think (either through self-delusion, misunderstandings or deliberate mixed messages) their love interest actually reciprocates.

[Mismatched]

I don't know about putting friendships before romantic relationships, but I've heard quite a few people say romantic relationships are not more important to them than close friendships.

It's all well and good to say they're equal, but there's no such thing as equal. That lovely Indian couple, for example... what's the likelihood that the nice Indian lady would choose to stay in Mumbai and live with her neighbors rather than go with her husband to Bangalore, where his job was transferred to? And what's the likelihood that, if she doesn't go with them, that their marriage will continue on?

When push comes to shove and you have to choose one, I'm going to say again, I'm sure that in 99% of cases, assuming there's still an abundance of love, the romantic relationship will come before the friendship. I'm not saying that there's not occasional situations where people have strong, enduring friendships that really are prioritized over their romantic relationships... but those are very rare and much more likely in books and movies than in real life.

What I find odd is how upsetting this idea seems to be. Generally the point of a marriage is to build a life together, so its fairly obvious that most people are going to choose that life over a friendship, if they have to choose. I don't see why that's insulting or upsetting. If I had to choose, I'd choose my mom over my friend too, but I don't think my friends should feel badly about that.

Looking through this discussion, I do agree with you Maid that friendships even close friendships are fundamentally different from romantic relationships in the fact that in a romantic relationship two people are planning on sharing a life together. This is why I am pretty unsure if I can continue with a romantic relationship because I don't think that I can actually share my life with someone else.

Close friends don't need to share a house, share 90% of their lives for an extended period of time to continue being friends. You can talk everyday, and even be roommates, but there isn't that expectation that the other person is going to be physically close to you for the rest of your lives. A roommate can move out, get an different job, graduate from school, but that doesn't really make too much strain on the friendship. It is expect that you are to individuals with separate lives, and you can choose different options and life paths without the restriction of worrying out stepping on what the other person has plans for. Between friends one person can decide that they are going to have kids, while the other friend prefers not to have them, and it is okay and no toes are stepped on.

With romantic relationships, it is expect that your plans in live are going to intersect and combine to a certain extent. Long term plans are suddenly much more important to the other person in the relationship because it can also effect their lives greatly. If your partner suddenly takes a job in Australia, if they don't want kids, if they hate your mother, if they love dogs but you are allergic to them, these types of things will need to be negotiated in a romantic relationship because how the one issue is resolved can greatly effect the lives two people in the relationship, it can effect their life together.

I just wanted to say all of that before I mentioned that I have known of some Indian couples who have lived apart for extended periods of time (1 year - 6 months), however that didn't effect their resolve that they are going to grow old together, and have children together or continue to raise their kids together. I think the point I am making is that sometimes not choosing to move with the husband for some time of relocation, might not always be considered as taking something else over a relationship. Sometimes it is basic logistics that cause some temporarily separation between couples. But it is hard to hold resentment towards the simple facts of logistics, but you can hold resentment when your partner just doesn't want to move with you, with no good reason, after it was previously assumed that you were going to live your lives together.

In a romantic relationship, I just consider that to be based more on promises and firmer commitments to link to lives together into one life, you don't necessarily promise much to your friend to stay friends. If eventually you drift apart from a friend that once was close, it is okay. Well you can say if two people who just eventually fall out of love, that happens to sometimes and it is alright for people to separate. But there is a bit more expected out of a romantic relationships; it shouldn't be as easy to just drift away from your life partner as it is to drift away from a friend. Not that friendships aren't also important and can't be lifelong and that they can't greatly impact your life, but they aren't as entangled in your life and their life isn't as attached to yours which makes the friendships a bit easier.

[Guest]

Very well said.

[Nogitsune]

But see, friendships can be like that, too, expectations and all. There are people who have those kinds of friendships. I want to have those kind of friendships. It all depends on the people involved, and that's what I meant by there not being a "universal" difference between romance and friendship. What you did is state cultural norms and explain how it is for you personally, nothing more and nothing less. (Also, not all romantic relationships involve only two people.)

[Mismatched]

But see, friendships can be like that, too, expectations and all. There are people who have those kinds of friendships. I want to have those kind of friendships. It all depends on the people involved, and that's what I meant by there not being a "universal" difference between romance and friendship. What you did is state cultural norms and explain how it is for you personally, nothing more and nothing less. (Also, not all romantic relationships involve only two people.)

Yeah I can understand your point, but I think what appears to be a middle way between friends and a long term romantic relationship is what you want. And I think the thing about this is that I would consider that type of relationship to have a different term, other than "friends". For the type of relationship that you want, it seems like the word "friends" is a bit in adequate. I wouldn't know what kind of word to use, but I have a best friend I haven't seen in physically in 7 years, and that doesn't make us any less connected by how we define our friendship.

Maybe an adoptive family type of relationship, where you consider someone or people to be your new found brothers and sisters, and people because a cohesive close unit, but aren't related by blood and they aren't necessarily romantically involved with each other. The idea of a type of family unit choosing to stay together is completely understandable. And that type of relationship would combine the aspect of committing to each other (including multiple people) for a long time to stay together, while not necessarily having the romance to be apart of the equation.

I know it may seem unfair and non-progressive to stick with some previous definitions of relationships, but we do have words to define general concepts for a reason, and stretching out a word to broaden that meaning just might end up making that word useless or not comprehensible when people use it.

I think that it is just a general understanding that friends aren't as restricted by the events in the other person's life, and if I were in a close friendship with someone, and then suddenly I got transferred for a job and my friend started making plans for them to move as well. I would suddenly wonder if she considered us more than friends, no matter how long our friendship has lasted. But if we had mutually come into a sister type of relationship it wouldn't be as weird for me to think that she is moving with me.

I understand that there are romantic relationships requiring more than one person, there are polyamorous and polygamous relationship, and what I said about romantic relationships still applies to those relationships, it just involves more people. If someone in a five way romantic relationship, decides to have children, it still effects the four other people within the relationship.

In my opinion, I just can't consider romantic relationships as just friendships but with sex, or just an intense friendship. Yeah a lot of these things are implied, but that is what most people associate with those words. I totally know of married couples who live in different apartments, but that doesn't make them more so friends and that doesn't negate their romantic aspect. They are still committed to being in each other's lives and effecting each other's life in their decisions more so than a best friend would. They may not sleep in the same bed all the time, but I still can't call a friend who lives an apartment down the hall more influential in the partner's life long term than the other life partner who lives down the street.

Yeah, so lifelong promises and commitments, I think, change the playing field. And if you enter into that realm with your friend or friends, then I think you have become more than just friends, it may not be a romantic relationship, it is something that deserves a different term because I know of things like this to be possible between people. And calling those relationships to just be "friendships" seem inadequate and don't do justice to the connection those people have. I totally think that there should be different general descriptions on relationships based on the level of commitment, promises, and mutually agreed upon effects the other will have in their lives.

I actually think David Jay did a video about this on his blog...