I was reading this article on CNN.com about a supposedly insidious phenomenon some people engage in: Social Poaching.
I don’t know about you but I think the concept of ‘friend snatching’ is just these people’s excuse for their own insecurities in their relationships. Since when do we own our friends like they were things or pets? I especially like this guy’s outrage after two friends of his met:
I suppose he thinks they should’ve done it in writing too.
If my coworkers and my highschool buddies met and got along I either wouldn’t care or be pretty happy about it. I mean, isn’t this how friends meet? Isn’t this how you network in your career?
Anyways, have any of you been a victim of social poaching (that is, if you think this is some sort of bad thing), or poach yourself? Do you think this is a bad thing?
I quit reading that article halfway through. I kept wondering "why do these people need to have a circle of friends that are exclusive only to them? It’s ok for me to have 10 friends, but they don’t get to have anyone but me. That’s just stupid.
I seem to be one of those people whose gift it is to introduce people who have things in common, but otherwise never would have met.
On one hand, I think it’s a really cool thing to do and I take delight in knowing that I helped people connect. After all, if I connect two people who both have interests in Hot Air Balloon Squid Farming, and they both get along famously and can enjoy each others company in their ultra-obsure hobby, then I’ve helped two people further both their interests and their lives.
On the other hand, it makes me a little bit jealous when they get along famously and have better, closer relationships with each other than either has with me. (And I suspect that’s the emotion at work in the article, which I haven’t read.) The worst being if you introduce two friends and end up losing both of them because of it. That can smack of betrayal. Been there, experienced that. More than once.
This happened in my group of friends. Friend A - we’ll call her Grace - had a (gay) male best friend - lets call him Will - who she adored and was incredibly close to. They shared a flat, went everywhere together, told each other everything, etc, etc. Grace and I then got to know another woman (who’ll henceforth be known as Karen) and became friends with her. All went well until Grace introduced Will to Karen. They hit it off immediately, and while Grace didn’t mind at first, she was furious when she discovered they’d been hanging out without her, demanding they stop seeing each other and all sorts, it nearly ended all of the friendships (except mine, as I was just watching on the sidelines feeling slightly baffled).
I honestly couldn’t understand her reaction - I’m always delighted when my friends get on with each other. But I think some people as just so insecure they worry that somehow they’ll lose their friend to the interloper. Which I guess in the case above has sort of happened, as Will is now sharing a flat with Karen. But I still don’t get Grace’s possessive reaction. You don’t get to own someone.
This sounds like a problem only experienced by young people and divorced people who have to split up their friends – another practice I’m not fond of. Unless someone does something Totally Shitty (shitty enough that it would kill the outside relationships as well as the marriage), ex-spouses should both be able to retain the friendships and should let their friends know that, so they don’t feel obligated to choose sides.
I haven’t had this jealousy since I was 10yo (I convinced my friend to be nice to the new girl in class and they hit it off), but I’ve had
a boyfriend introduce me to his friends and spend a couple hours pouting because we were getting along swimmingly,
another do the same with his mother and sister,
and my SiL has a thick “queen bee” streak which, combined with a heavy dose of control issues (she’s relaxed a lot now), produced several “parties” where she’d pout if two people that she hadn’t thought would have anything to talk about, did. She’s outgrown it, like I said.
I, in a way, have the opposite problem. My group of friends demands we all hang out together, with the exception being the ones living in other cities. But if one friend from another city comes to visit, all the people in the group that are there must hang out. There is no ‘let’s have just the two of us hang out together!’.
Of course, any new person introduced to the group must become part of the group and make it their main social group. People who do not do this quite quickly find themselves excluded. Now, this is a problem when there’s no unanimous agreement on what to do when we hang out, so someone always feels pushed into doing something they don’t want to do.
I think it turned out this way because it keeps people from going off and doing just what is in the article: ‘ditching’ one friend for a new one. You can’t ditch someone if everyone has to be together.
However, I don’t see why everyone has to do everything together. The group can hold itself together even if we intermingle amongst ourselves individually. But it doesn’t work out when I bring that up…
Wait a minute, there’s no limit on how many friends you can have, right? So, two of your friends can meet, become friends, and *still * be *your * friends, right? I don’t see the problem.
However, be aware that the article opens by talking about a woman who had remained friends with her ex-husband, and they had children so would socialize. A female friend moved in with her ex. That situation was definitely awkward.
Also, I can see the potential for hurt feelings if your two friends meet, hit it off, and both dump you.
Um…yeah that’s kind of chick stuff. Girls (and I thought it was usually high school through maybe early 20s) tend to place a lot more importance on that kind of thing than guys do.
It’s like this. I meet “Adam”. Adam has two friends “Bill” and “Chuck”. Well, how many times do I hang out with all three of them before I can call Bill or Chuck to go out with? Now I would generally call Adam first just because he’s my closest friend but maybe Chuck or Bill have a shared interest with me that Adam doesn’t. I don’t think it’s a big deal.