Friendships and emotional attachment

[PopClick]

I would like to hear everyone's opinions, but I hope Cinder will show up and post because I'm bouncing off of something she said a while ago but I can't quote it because I don't remember where it was.

The basic premise was not to get too close/emotionally attached to a friend of the opposite gender if you weren't dating. I am wondering why this is a bad thing if the two of you know that you are not dating and are both free to date other people if you want to.

I know that the answers will vary from person to person, but I am asking for individual opinions. How do you define "too close", emotionally speaking (if you believe that there is such a thing)?

 

[zeroturbulence]

Why is it a bad idea? One word... friendzone.

 

[tourist]

There is always the chance that when you have a friend of the opposite sex that you will fall in love with each other. Now, that's not a bad thing at all providing that you both are single and available. There may be a problem when the love is unrequited, when only one falls in love and not the other. Hopefully, before this happens, the one who is not falling in love will speak up to mitigate the situation.

There are always risks in relationships, especially if you want to take the relationship beyond a platonic level. Yes, there is the risk of a broken heart but there is also the chance for a growing, loving, enduring relationship.

The choice is yours.

 

[MissCris]

My perspective on this might be a little...not what you're looking for...with me being married and all, but let's see what happens anyway, because adventure! Lol? Um...oh, right...

"Too close" I think would be depending overmuch on that person to share in all of your triumphs, failures, joys, and pain. I know that we all need somebody in our lives whom we can confide in, and share with, and experience life with- God created us to desire that connection. But I just feel that when that connection happens between a man and a woman who have no plans for a relationship with each other, it's gone a tad too far and is asking for trouble.

I'm not saying that two single people (a man and a woman) shouldn't be friends, or even close friends...just that there's a level of emotional intimacy that shouldn't be breached by them unless it's going to end in marriage.

And maybe I feel this way because of my own past experience, or maybe because it's just so stinking easy for people to hurt/be hurt. I suppose it's possible for super close friendships to develop and be maintained between genders without there ever being a problem, without somebody ending up heartbroken, but it's just not something I've ever witnessed (admittedly I haven't met everyone on the planet, and I take that into consideration when I spout my nonsense opinions ).

 

[Willie-T]

"Tis better to have loved and lost love, than never to have loved at all."

 

[MissCris]

"Tis better to have loved and lost love, than never to have loved at all."

I half agree with this...

Sometimes a friendship or romance is worth the risk of ending up hurt. I'm all for taking chances on people...and giving them second, third, fourth chances as well...

But a person also needs to use their brain and a measure of wisdom and discernment in their friendships as well, and sometimes that means Not taking a risk.

...by the way, I haven't figured out how to do that, sooo...

 

[PopClick]

My perspective on this might be a little...not what you're looking for...with me being married and all, but let's see what happens anyway, because adventure! Lol? Um...oh, right...

Lol no, I very much appreciate your perspective. Thank you for posting it.

 

[PoetMary]

"Tis better to have loved and lost love, than never to have loved at all."

Just FYI, this quote is from the poem "In Memoriam" by Alfred Lord Tennyson. It is not a quote related to romantic love. Tennyson wrote the poem about a platonic friendship.

 

[Willie-T]

It was actually written about his best friend who passed away while abroad. And this is the essence of what some people are saying.... "Don't get close to anyone, and you cannot be hurt."

 

[seoulsearch]

"Tis better to have loved and lost love, than never to have loved at all."

I have never agreed with this because it's a terrible thing to know what you're missing.

Sometimes, ignorance truly can be a better option.

Looking back, I would have preferred to never have experienced the deep, bonding love I had with my ex-husband. Because knowing that he married someone else, I always have to remember that now he shares that deep love with someone else, and chose to do so. And because I've never found love like that again, but he apparently has, I, personally, would have chosen to remain ignorant that it could even exist. To me, having loved, and then seeing the person you love willing choose to love someone else is a fate worse than death. At least, it feels like it.

Pop, to answer your question... I've had really good guy friends, and maybe you both start out "knowing" you're "never going to date", but when you bond closely with a person... Generally one of the two will eventually want something more.

In my case it's always worked out that the guy has met and married someone else, which is wonderful. But, it can definitely get messy. I'm not sure I'd hold back from a friendship because of it, but I do know that you can almost expect to run into some complications.

 

[cinder]

Well since I was specifically requested by name, I better show up at least long enough to share the wisdom that I have gained from mastering the art of being always the devoted friend and never the girlfriend. Like others have said, it isn't always wrong, but often you are going to end up in an unsustainable and messy place. And that's if you're both single and free to date each other should you desire, but knowing that it would be unwise and has a very low chance of working out but wishing things would change so that it could. Much messier if one or both of you are already in a relationship.

But there are people wiser than me who talk about this stuff so I'll refer people again to a great article that someone else posted in the forums and I bookmarked: Pure Intimacy - Not Your Buddy

Or for those who don't like to click on links here's the part I'd reference:

In her book Relationships, former college professor Dr. Pamela Reeve discusses three levels of friendships: acquaintances, companions and intimate friends. Dr. Reeve observes that men and women cannot sustain an intimate friendship without one or the other harboring romantic expectations. She recommends that men and women avoid being intimate friends outside of courtship and marriage.

Companions, she says, generally spend less than two hours together a week. When a man indicates he would like to see the woman more than that, but claims they are "just friends," he sends a mixed message.

Dr. Reeve writes: "One party can selfishly enjoy all the benefits of a relationship, the warmth and relief from loneliness, the satisfaction of the attention that feeds the ego — all without the accompanying commitment. One party luxuriates, while the other party feels cheated and is left with deep unsatisfied longings."

I've recently observed several non-dating relationships that seem to fall into the "intimate friends" category. In every case, it is the woman who is paying the price emotionally. Why? When a guy starts investing his heart, he can do something about it by making a move. And if the girl rejects him, the friendship ends or changes significantly. A woman, however, can hang on in this kind of relationship indefinitely, hoping the guy will eventually share her feelings. She makes herself available to him as a "friend," all the while hoping the friendship will blossom into something more.

A woman loves to read into a guy's every action. That's her relational crime. But the guy does her a disservice by allowing her to be his "buddy girl" — a female friend who provides the relational benefits without the commitment.

And those are my thoughts.

 

[Willie-T]

I have never agreed with this because it's a terrible thing to know what you're missing.

Sometimes, ignorance truly can be a better option.

Looking back, I would have preferred to never have experienced the deep, bonding love I had with my ex-husband. Because knowing that he married someone else, I always have to remember that now he shares that deep love with someone else, and chose to do so. And because I've never found love like that again, but he apparently has, I, personally, would have chosen to remain ignorant that it could even exist. To me, having loved, and then seeing the person you love willing choose to love someone else is a fate worse than death. At least, it feels like it.

Pop, to answer your question... I've had really good guy friends, and maybe you both start out "knowing" you're "never going to date", but when you bond closely with a person... Generally one of the two will eventually want something more.

In my case it's always worked out that the guy has met and married someone else, which is wonderful. But, it can definitely get messy. I'm not sure I'd hold back from a friendship because of it, but I do know that you can almost expect to run into some complications.

I can understand that.

 

[zeroturbulence]

Well since I was specifically requested by name, I better show up at least long enough to share the wisdom that I have gained from mastering the art of being always the devoted friend and never the girlfriend. Like others have said, it isn't always wrong, but often you are going to end up in an unsustainable and messy place. And that's if you're both single and free to date each other should you desire, but knowing that it would be unwise and has a very low chance of working out but wishing things would change so that it could. Much messier if one or both of you are already in a relationship.

But there are people wiser than me who talk about this stuff so I'll refer people again to a great article that someone else posted in the forums and I bookmarked: Pure Intimacy - Not Your Buddy

Or for those who don't like to click on links here's the part I'd reference:

In her book Relationships, former college professor Dr. Pamela Reeve discusses three levels of friendships: acquaintances, companions and intimate friends. Dr. Reeve observes that men and women cannot sustain an intimate friendship without one or the other harboring romantic expectations. She recommends that men and women avoid being intimate friends outside of courtship and marriage.

Companions, she says, generally spend less than two hours together a week. When a man indicates he would like to see the woman more than that, but claims they are "just friends," he sends a mixed message.

Dr. Reeve writes: "One party can selfishly enjoy all the benefits of a relationship, the warmth and relief from loneliness, the satisfaction of the attention that feeds the ego — all without the accompanying commitment. One party luxuriates, while the other party feels cheated and is left with deep unsatisfied longings."

I've recently observed several non-dating relationships that seem to fall into the "intimate friends" category. In every case, it is the woman who is paying the price emotionally. Why? When a guy starts investing his heart, he can do something about it by making a move. And if the girl rejects him, the friendship ends or changes significantly. A woman, however, can hang on in this kind of relationship indefinitely, hoping the guy will eventually share her feelings. She makes herself available to him as a "friend," all the while hoping the friendship will blossom into something more.

A woman loves to read into a guy's every action. That's her relational crime. But the guy does her a disservice by allowing her to be his "buddy girl" — a female friend who provides the relational benefits without the commitment.

And those are my thoughts.

Just like I said... friendzone!

 

[Liamson]

Well since I was specifically requested by name, I better show up at least long enough to share the wisdom that I have gained from mastering the art of being always the devoted friend and never the girlfriend. Like others have said, it isn't always wrong, but often you are going to end up in an unsustainable and messy place. And that's if you're both single and free to date each other should you desire, but knowing that it would be unwise and has a very low chance of working out but wishing things would change so that it could. Much messier if one or both of you are already in a relationship.

But there are people wiser than me who talk about this stuff so I'll refer people again to a great article that someone else posted in the forums and I bookmarked: Pure Intimacy - Not Your Buddy

Or for those who don't like to click on links here's the part I'd reference:

In her book Relationships, former college professor Dr. Pamela Reeve discusses three levels of friendships: acquaintances, companions and intimate friends. Dr. Reeve observes that men and women cannot sustain an intimate friendship without one or the other harboring romantic expectations. She recommends that men and women avoid being intimate friends outside of courtship and marriage.

Companions, she says, generally spend less than two hours together a week. When a man indicates he would like to see the woman more than that, but claims they are "just friends," he sends a mixed message.

Dr. Reeve writes: "One party can selfishly enjoy all the benefits of a relationship, the warmth and relief from loneliness, the satisfaction of the attention that feeds the ego — all without the accompanying commitment. One party luxuriates, while the other party feels cheated and is left with deep unsatisfied longings."

I've recently observed several non-dating relationships that seem to fall into the "intimate friends" category. In every case, it is the woman who is paying the price emotionally. Why? When a guy starts investing his heart, he can do something about it by making a move. And if the girl rejects him, the friendship ends or changes significantly. A woman, however, can hang on in this kind of relationship indefinitely, hoping the guy will eventually share her feelings. She makes herself available to him as a "friend," all the while hoping the friendship will blossom into something more.

A woman loves to read into a guy's every action. That's her relational crime. But the guy does her a disservice by allowing her to be his "buddy girl" — a female friend who provides the relational benefits without the commitment.

And those are my thoughts.

I've never seen the guy on the receiving end of such an arrangement.


If anything it is the guy who puts himself out there, buys flowers, spends his time, money, effort ensuring that she is cared for, only to discover that its simply how she likes to be treated by her "Good friends"




This is why I've held that reciprocation is the natural reaction to wanted affection.


Let me say that again. If a guy says that you are beautiful, magical, wonderful, enchanting, delightful, intoxicating, insightful, or otherwise generally speaking pretty freaking awesome. Don't just say, "Well duh, I wish more people understood that fact." If he buys you flowers, its not "Well finally someone treats me like a lady!" If he crosses oceans, climbs mountains, slays dragons or comes back to life to be with you, don't get creeped out because that is just "too intense right now."


If a guy buys you flowers, surprise him by buying flowers for him.

If he buys you lunch, surprise him with lunch.

If you pays you an unexpected compliment, wait for it and surprise him with one too.



Its easy.

 

[cinder]

Yes gentlemen, I'm sure it cuts both ways and guys are often treated as the buddy when they want to be more than just the friend as well. The point I'm trying to make, and that the article is trying to make is that we do each other a disservice when we suspect that a friend is hanging on hoping for something more or giving more than we're willing to reciprocate, and we don't clear the matter up. And we do ourselves a disservice by hanging on and investing the level of emotion into a "friendship" that we should be reserving for a more committed relationship. Bottom line is if a friend is giving or being given a level of special consideration that others aren't, time to be brutally honest with yourself and ask what your motives are.

 

[PopClick]

Thank you to everyone for the responses. Cinder, I hope you didn't feel singled out or put on the spot... I had wanted to ask you to elaborate on your thoughts in the thread that sparked this one, but didn't want to derail it. Maybe I should have PMed you? Sorry. :O

 

[cinder]

Thank you to everyone for the responses. Cinder, I hope you didn't feel singled out or put on the spot... I had wanted to ask you to elaborate on your thoughts in the thread that sparked this one, but didn't want to derail it. Maybe I should have PMed you? Sorry. :O

It would take far more than appreciating something I shared and asking me to share more information to offend me. Now try to get me to talk about feelings or warm fuzzies or something like that in any sort of relationship to my inner workings and we may have a problem then again I may just decide I'm not dealing with such problems that day and then we wouldn't have a problem.

By the way, went back through old posts but still have no idea exactly what post it was that sparked these thoughts in you.

 

[cmarieh]

Thank you to everyone for the responses. Cinder, I hope you didn't feel singled out or put on the spot... I had wanted to ask you to elaborate on your thoughts in the thread that sparked this one, but didn't want to derail it. Maybe I should have PMed you? Sorry. :O

I know this was intended for Cinder, but I think we all needed to hear some of these responses. Thank you for posting this in its own thread

 

[Roh_Chris]

The basic premise was not to get too close/emotionally attached to a friend of the opposite gender if you weren't dating. I am wondering why this is a bad thing if the two of you know that you are not dating and are both free to date other people if you want to.

I don't think it is a bad thing. The word for such relationships is "platonic". I've had a very good friend for so many years and we've stuck by each other through thick and thin. She is married now, and her hubby and I have become good friends. Obviously, things have changed now that she has married but we are still good friends with each other.

In my opinion - it comes down to the expectations of both the parties. If they expect the same things, then, barring the pain of parting, neither will feel "cheated" or "used" when the other moves on. However, should one of the two develop strong feelings at some point, I would advise that he/she shares it with the other person. I think it would be awesome to spend one's life with a soul-mate - a friend, who can also play the role of a loving spouse.

 

[PopClick]

It would take far more than appreciating something I shared and asking me to share more information to offend me. Now try to get me to talk about feelings or warm fuzzies or something like that in any sort of relationship to my inner workings and we may have a problem then again I may just decide I'm not dealing with such problems that day and then we wouldn't have a problem.

By the way, went back through old posts but still have no idea exactly what post it was that sparked these thoughts in you.

Well, while you're here, maybe you could talk about warm fuzzies?

Yeah, I looked for the post too, so I could quote it, but I couldn't find it.

I know this was intended for Cinder, but I think we all needed to hear some of these responses. Thank you for posting this in its own thread

I'm glad you enjoyed it.