Friendship vs. Romance

In the thread about "real" men and "real" women, feotakahari said the following:

I've actually been toying with the idea of creating a thread for this topic for a while, and have finally been moved to do so.

It seems to me that our culture places such a priority on romantic love as to denigrate so-called "platonic" love, AKA friendship. Very few people will accept that you can actually love your friends without being in love with them. When fans put on their Shipping Goggles, one of the first things they look at is: Do these two characters enjoy spending time together, do favors for each other, and/or take risks for each other? IT MUST BE TWOO WUV!!!

Similarly, if you are in a romantic relationship, even a casual one, your significant other is supposed to be The Most Important Person In Your Life. You are obligated to take their side in every argument, even if the other party is clearly in the right and is your best friend since kindergarten. If the two of you are at a group gathering, your fixation on each other must border on disdain for every other attendee—if you don't ignore every conversation in favor of making out, you're not really in love. (And if you do make out, you should do it in full view of the gathering, to show off how much better your love is than all of their "mere" friendship.)

Gods help you if you are in a relationship and ever want to spend some one-on-one friend time with a person the same gender as your S.O. Nothing you or the friend say will convince anyone that it wasn't an affair. And even if it wasn't, it was just so selfish of you to go to lunch with them and not bring your S.O. along. Even if, again, it's your best friend since kindergarten.

Conversely, the number and quality of your platonic friendships does not matter—if you aren't involved in a romance, you are "alone," bereft of love and companionship. No "mere" friendship could ever be as emotionally fulfilling as having a boyfriend/girlfriend.

I don't think this is healthy for our culture. I think it puts too much pressure on people, both to find their One True Soulmate and then to provide for all of that person's emotional needs.

Thoughts?

My thoughts exactly. I very much agree with you.

A guy/girl you went out on a date with a few times shouldn't be more important than your friend who you've been having fun with for years.

What more, the girlfriends/boyfriends of my friends are, in most cases, temporary, and they won't even want to see each other a few months from now. And still they would always put their girlfriend/boyfriend on higher priority.

People see it as some kind of race to get into a romantic relationship, and then into marriage. And they threaten me that if I don't do the same I'll be alone.

Well, my ideal romantic partner would also be my friend. In which case its less "Friend vs lover" and more "Friend vs friend".

Agreed so very much.

This one does not see romance as in any way superior to friendship. Quite the contrary, romance has much greater chance of being temporary and shallow.

And yes, this one is very annoyed by an idea that it is not possible to love without being in love.

Leaving aside your specific issues, I don't think it's difficult to see why people consider romance to be more "special" than friendship, at least on an individual relationship basis.

For one thing, you generally will only have one significant other at a given time, whereas you can have dozens or hundreds (if people's FB profiles are to be believed) of friends to split your affections and time for, and who will do the same with you - some people do have BF Fs who may reach that level of presence and importance in their lives, but not everyone does. Romance is almost always more exclusive, and therefore by definition more special.

It is true that not everyone called "friend" plays an important role in one's life. It is also true that friendship as intense as romance is uncommon. But thing is - so is romance.

"A guy/girl you went out on a date with a few times shouldn't be more important than your friend who you've been having fun with for years."

Strawman much?

Why is it a strawman?

My personal defintion of both is a little fuzzy, but in the broad, generally accepted sense, I agree with the first few posters on the point that too much importance is placed on being in a romantic relationship.

In purely biological terms, more importance is placed on what your romantic (and therefore presumably sexual) partner says because, well, you're boinking them. If you don't agree, you might not get to. There's a greater intensity of feeling involved in romantic relationships - again in purely biological terms, designed to make lifelong partnerships more palatable. Neurochemicals associated with physical attraction and the subsequent bonding process - those things that make your heart beat faster, make you sweat, give you a little buzz when you think about the other person - in a platonic friendship, you don't have those. Chemicals released during and after sex, like oxytocin, are also used to bond a mother to her child. And you wouldn't expect someone to choose their friend over their kid in most regular circumstances.

I prefer to look at it from a biological standpoint. Friends are aids to long-term survival, providing safety in numbers, support, etc. And a larger group of friends mean that, even if you are happy without a romantic relationship at this point, you'll have a decent variety of potential mates when or if you are interested. Romantic partners are imperative to the continued survival of the human race (instinctually, obviously technology and a faster-moving society have rendered this somewhat moot) and the survival of your child and your genetic heritage. You feel more strongly because you have to.

It's a strawman because romance over friendship doesn't mean putting your friends beneath some random person you'd like to fuck. You might be thinking of bros before hoes, which has to do with the initial infatuation rather than values. It's quite different from the privileging of romantic partners over platonic ones.

And Karalora's OP is as much of a strawman, because real relationships generally don't function on such a level of codependence and possessiveness.

edited 17th Sep '11 6:36:35 AM by kashchei

Of course. Some romance is shallow. So is some friendship. And that's exactly the point - one should not place one above the other just because they are "romance", "friendship" or what have you. A good friendship is definitely superior to bad romance.

Someitmes I think people haave these thoughts because they don't have a lot of friends.

Strawman, kashchei? I'm speaking of behavior I've witnessed.

However, upon reviewing the OP, I think I confused the issue by going into too much detail. I blame the lateness of the hour when I posted. Ahem. The core of my complaint is as follows:

Our culture treats romance as automatically more intense, more important, and all-around more than friendship, and in the process denigrates friendship. No matter how close or long-lasting a friendship, it will be seen as inferior to romance in terms of providing for the emotional needs of the participants...or it might be suspected of being a romance, because you couldn't possibly feel that strongly for someone without also wanting to get in their pants, right?

Everything else mentioned in the OP is just a symptom.

Does that clear things up?

This one has nothing to add

Our culture treats romance as automatically more intense, more important, and all-around more than friendship, and in the process denigrates friendship. No matter how close or long-lasting a friendship, it will be seen as inferior to romance in terms of providing for the emotional needs of the participants...or it might be suspected of being a romance, because you couldn't possibly feel that strongly for someone without also wanting to get in their pants, right?

I'm sorry you're unusual.

Yeah, probably.

But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Yes, it does.

Love and friendship can go hand in hand with a partner, but if you don't understand love then you probably shouldn't make these statements.

Love and friendship are seperate ideas that can happen at the same time.

Um... sorry?

I read this as the usual vaguely aspie "why does society work like this" tropespeak, and I reacted the way i normally do.

You say that because you hold a minority position and don't get the majority view, they must be wrong.

You can not understand something but still think you are wrong.

edited 17th Sep '11 8:50:00 AM by Erock

I agree with you there, although I think that these attitudes simply follow from it being true for such a large amount of people.

Thinking that friendship is not lesser than romance in any way does not mean failing to understand love.

Unless you go with an assumption that love=romance, of course

edited 17th Sep '11 8:19:34 AM by Beholderess

A bad thing to you. Understanding you are unusual in your opinions and just accepting msot people think like that is the proper thing to do.

Oh, okay, Erock. At first it looked to me like a 16-year-old was telling a woman old enough to be his mother "You just don't understand love!" That was pretty hilarious.

I'm sure it is true. The thing about culture is that it makes itself true by training the people in it to think a certain way. "Romance > friendship" is hardly a universal sentiment across all cultures.