I’m placing it here instead of IMHO because there are, I assume, real professional studies in support for one or the other, not just opinions. And since my opinions are neither humble nor my own… It’s not in GQ because there may not be the factual answer I’m looking for. Anyway, that moves too fast and it’d scroll off the first screen before a good discussion started. But the Mods may disagree with me, not for the first time.
After my thread asking how one tells if another party is “interested” I learned that even if I make it absolutely clear that the thread is NOT about a real and recent incident in my own life but was a question I had long pondered people have come to assume that as I am the center of my universe anything I write is likely to be about me. Sorry folks, but in this thread the “friends” I am talking about are really friends of mine and neither is one of my alter egos. Got that? Good.
I have some friends (see Note 2 above) that have been good buddies for some time. Both are single and not seeing someone else but they are still functioning on a “just friends” basis. One party would like to take this friendship and allow it to blossom into a romance. The other party, for whatever reason (we cannot discount cluelessness as a possibility), has prevented that from happening.
In days of yore I heard many complaints from friends (in some of those cases Note 2 can be ignored) that they had heard things like “Let’s not mess up a good friendship” when they tried to move the relationship to the next level. As I have long assumed that the real basis of a longterm relationship was the ability to stand being in the same room as ones partner years after the relationship began and as being good friends means that test has already been passed that argument always seemed nonsensical, but I have no data beyond my own observations to back it up.
On the other hand, I cannot ignore the importance of a physical attraction, though that is transitory (and not always as explicable as it might seem, greatly aiding guys like me and Arthur Miller) and we are talking the long term here, aren’t we?
So, what do the studies say about the relative importance of these factors? Heck, toss in an opinion if you want (as if I have ever managed to prevent that before). Does the Guccione Foundation say “You don’t f*ck the brain?” How does that mesh with the Arthur Miller/Marilyn Monroe example?
Romance is not the “next level” in friendship. Romance and friendship are two separate tracks. There is a distinct diference between being friends with someone (ie enjoying their company or sharing similar interests), romantic interest (wanting to be with that person all the time) and and sexual attraction (wanting to bang them). An ideal relationship has elements of all these things, but having one is no guarantee of the other two.
I would say that in my experience, it’s easier to go from romantic to just friends than the other way around. Once you are a “friend” you are no longer considered a romantic or sexual partner.
For a romantic relationship, attraction is more key, because it is harder to fake/learn to achieve. While level of friendship certainly influences how much I am attracted to someone, sometimes the attraction just isn’t there, no matter what.
Whereas I always hold out the possibility that someone’s personality will change, allowing me to be friends with them (although this rarely if ever happens.)
Why would that be? If one considers the difficulties facing a lonterm relationship that would seem counterintuitive, though it can explain the divorce rate.
I’ve always felt that a romantic commitment is a level on top of friendship, though it isn’t a “next step” really (as msmith alludes, though we still seem to disagree). Of course, “being attracted” to someone is a pretty nebulous quality as well… while physical attraction is often necessary early in a relationship, it should never be a key point to a romantic relationship. Being attracted to a person’s general behavior or mental side is, I think, the most necessary component for a successful romantic relationship. Given this, friendship is inherent. Mostly, in some way I am attracted to most of my friends. I’ve always felt that a physical attraction, at this point in my life, is what starts relationships off, but it cannot carry them for more than a short period of time (relative to the human lifespan).
I don’t understand this, but I’ve heard it, too. If a friendship cannot take a knock or three, if it can’t hold up when the chips are down, I think the entire level of friendship should be reconsidered. Usually this means that one person is much more committed to a permanent relationship of some sort than the other; one is willing to take chances, knowing it won’t break anything long-term. But this is just MHO.
Opinions? Personal experiences? I suppose it was inevitable that I’d have to admit I put this in the wrong forum. :smack: If the mods would be so gracious…
But in the mean time I do not wish to end this fascinating look into people’s thought processes!
So you shouldn’t determine whether you want a romantic relationship with someone by partially basing that on physical attraction?
I guess that would work if it was a romantic relationship that didn’t involve sex of any kind, but I don’t think most people function that way.
Physical attraction may seem ‘shallow’, but it’s quite important to having (at least I think) a romantic relationship with a person that’s supposed to last a long time. I think this is because it’s uncommon to find someone who would want to be in a committed romantic relationship with someone that would not involve sex, and because having sex with someone that you (general) aren’t physically attracted to isn’t really that satisfying or appealing an idea.
Not at all! Twice I mentioned that physical attraction is important and the likely catalyst to a romantic relationship. But there is more than one way to physical attraction; I often find that people I’m attracted to because of the way they think or are often results in a physical attraction.
It is probably critical early in a relationship between relatively young people. I don’t mean to shy away from it or suggest it is shallow; in my own experience it is absolutely critical. But also in my experience, it cannot sustain a relationship. Only a mental attraction and strong friendship can sustain it, at which point the physical attraction is a nice perk.
Goodness, if romantic interest means “wanting to be with that person all the time”, I have never been and never will be romantically interested in anyone. I may have to inform my husband of this. (Romantic interest for me works out best as something to the effect of “I want to be a cause of your joyfulness”.)
I do agree that romance is not some sort of ‘next level’. Not every interaction with another human being is an incipient marriage.
As to the OP – I think any relationship has some sort of natural comfort level that depends on the interactions of the people involved. (Some may have several such levels where they work.) If a relationship is going to work out longterm, each person involved must be able to say “This relationship is at a level of interaction, commitment, emotional involvement, etc., that works for me.” If one person isn’t happy with the level of something and keeps pushing for something that the other person doesn’t want in that relationship, you wind up with two unhappy people and a broken relationship. People with disparate ideal desires can have perfectly happy relationships if they have an overlap in ‘this relationship will work for me as a’ range and agree to go for what works for both of them, not just push for the I-wanna.
I’ve had relationships that are best established as friendships. (I hate the phrase ‘just friends’, as it seems to me to suggest that relationships that work best as friendships are somehow deficient because that’s where they’re functional.) I’ve had relationships that have been friendships for years that developed the possibility of a romantic-relationship component; I’ve negotiated the parameters of those relationships to accomodate both people’s comfort levels. I’ve had relationships with romantic components settle out over time to being best at friendships. I’ve had relationships that couldn’t work without romantic components; I’ve had relationships that couldn’t work with marriage-level components but worked fine as romantic friendships, and relationships that don’t work as romantic friendships but do work as long-term partnerships.
I’m one of those people who’s not culture-normal. I’m a woman who approaches men she’s interested in and happily negotiates what sort of relationship works for both of us. I don’t find that “I’m interested in a romantic relationship” causes problems in my interactions unless the person who’s interested isn’t willing to take “I’m not, sorry” as an answer. I’m given to understand that in more mainstream circles, all of this is significantly rarer, but that’s entirely outside my experience.
I see “romantic interest” as being somewhere between friendship and physical attraction, and equally dependent on both, and either of these factors can be the catalyst for the others. I agree with erislover that physical attraction can grow out of a mental attraction; there are people who I am physically attracted to because I know them well, who I probably wouldn’t spare a second glance for if I passed them in the street without knowing them.
As for the OP: a good friendship can be negatively affected by changing its status to a romantic relationship, or worse, the acknowledgement of a desire for more from one party, especially if the other doesn’t reciprocate. True, if the friendship is meaningful enough, it will probably recover, but it is a delicate balance. Friendships function with a degree of intimacy and trust that can encompass physical attraction, but often rely on the tacit understanding that that attraction will not be acted on. Some relationships can thrive on a combination of friendship and physical attraction, and completely bypass any romantic interest.
I’d certainly consider friendship to be paramount to the longterm success of any relationship, and it’s true to say that affection can ride out the waxing and waning of sexual desire, but the three factors are not equal.
As for the OP’s reference to Arthur Miller: a physical attraction based on the brain is possibly more likely to survive in the longterm: the mind tends to deteriorate more slowly than the body.
I was trying to decide if I agree with you about the three factors not being equal. I agree a person can become more attractive physically, once I get to know them as a person. It’s at that point, I’d be most likely to want to become involved in a relationship with them, rather than just remaining friends. So in the beginning, I’d say all three factors are equal.
I’ve dated a person I was really not attracted to physically. I hoped that status would change, since he was someone I was mentally attracted to and a great friend. It never happened, and neither did the long term relationship.
With a little more thinking, and rereading of the OP, I do agree, for a long term relationship, the three factors are no longer equal. I’ve known people whose partner has become disfigured through some accident, etc. and not only did the relationship survive, it appeared to be stronger and even more loving as a result. I’d like to think the same would happen in the relationship I’m in now. The initial physical attraction was there, but his other attributes are so much more important to me at this point, I’d say his attractiveness is no longer equal to them.
But isn’t his attractiveness increased because of his other attributes, irrespective of how objectively physically attractive he is?
I’d place romantic interest above physical attraction and friendship simply because I believe that for a romantic interest to be viable, the other two factors must be present, coupled with a desire to step up the emotional commitment. Friendship can entail a huge amount of emotional commitment, but without a degree of physical attraction, it cannot progress (or move sideways) to romantic interest.
I think it really depends on what you percieve as “romantic interest”.
IMHO, I believe that if you are interested in a long-term relationship, you had best look for romance with someone you are already friends with. After all, if you don’t really like each other, then it’s just sex and roses. If somebody leaves, then who cares? NEXT!! If all you want is romance, make sure you pick someone who isn’t interested in you on any other important level.
Of course, you should take what I say with a bag of salt.
Right his overall attractiveness increases, regardless of his physcial attractiveness. My point was (and maybe I’m misunderstanding your question), I don’t think the three attributes: physical attraction, intellectual attraction, and friendship are equal now. While initially, they were. The friendship has become stronger, we have more shared intellectual interests we’ve developed over time, while his physical appearance has not changed.
I see now that I substituted “intellectual interest” for your “romantic interest” as one of the three factors. I figured if a relationship was going to take place between two people, the romantic interest was a given. I think we’re in agreement here.
Ok, I’ll be the voice of someone who as actually said “I don’t want to mess up our friendship”. Let me explain why.
My best friend has been romantically interested in me for years. I know it, he knows that I know. There have been many hints dropped and at one point he asked me out on a date (“Not like the ones where we go out and be stupid. Something you would get dressed up for.”). I got the point, but passed.
I have a great friendship with my current SO and it is vital to our relationship. So why not date my friend? He engages me intellectually, makes me laugh, and is worth his weight in chocolate. I know my friend well enough to know that we would not be compatible sexually. And there is no spark on my part. No spark, no fire.
I don’t know exactly where the line is. And with some people (even me) the line between friend/romantic interest can change or disappear entirely. But, in this situation, the line is there. I am lucky enough to still have him as my friend. And I accept the fact that one day he may not be able to deal with his attraction to me and I’ll lose my friend. I don’t like it, but I accept it.
Yeah…I guess that’s not really what I meant. Romance means different things for diferent people. In the case of my girlfriend and I, our relationship is based on a rewards point system. Whenever I commit a boneheaded move (which is often) or violate one of the various rules of the relationship (which are not posted anywhere), she earns a number of “points”. Similar to airline miles. When she has earned enough points, she can cash them in for prizes like fancy dinners, work around the appartment, vacations, and whathaveyou. I don’t know how many points any particular event costs, how many she has at a given time or what the exchange rate is. So for us, it more like “If I’m not the cause of your joyfulness, at least you can earn rewards for your suffering.”
I don’t believe that “let’s not mess up a good friendship” means “let’s not mess up a good friendship”. It is not a statement of fear of encountering hurdles that cannot be, well, hurdled. Instead, it is a nice (though frankly, unclear and dishonest) way of saying, “Unfortunately my friend, I do not have feelings for you which would lead me to be interested in becoming a romantic partner.”
