Jay's relationship glossary :)

[jay]

I've had several discussions lately with folks about relationship labels. For myself, I tend to view friendship and relationship as part of a continuous spectrum, with friendships simply being a kind of incomplete/damaged/otherwise-constrained relationship (if close) or else simply a non-hostile person (if not close). These are mine, for my own historical reasons, and I am not trying to persuade anyone else to use them. Only perhaps to better understand what I say, at times?

sweetie: someone with whom I have emotional closeness and affection, a loving relationship. And typically some degree of attachment, and/or ongoing communication with each other. It is regardless of whether there's been any physical play or intimacy in the relationship, of whatever sort. Someone I trust and can have fun with.

lover: is someone with whom I've been some form of physically intimate, ironically whether or not there's any ongoing emotional attachment.

partner = sweetie + lover, plus a deeper ongoing commitment or attachment.

friend: is generally someone with whom I've mutually agreed to not be hostile. Closer to me than an acquaintance, but the term doesn't carry any connotation of openness or safety or support. If someone says "let's just be friends", I hear "we'll agree to not be enemies in the future, but not necessarily anything more." Not a love-relationship, per se.

friend-with-benefits: = friend + lover, without ongoing attachment

ambigu-sweetie: from radven originally, for me this is vaguely friend+sweetie, but since those are along the same continuum, it refers to differing connections in different activities.

tocotox, quantum-relationship: these are placeholder names I use for relationships/friendships that don't easily fit in the above categories, or which may function as one thing in some ways and as a different one in others. Or may probabilistically jump between different energy/connection levels over time, in the latter case.

I last visited this topic about 16 months ago, in this thread.

Comments

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It's harder for me to imagine that someone would *want* to invest significant time and energy in my life, or my family's, and vest that commitment unless they were in a capital-R relationship with me. Otherwise, why would they bother? What would be in it for them?

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

Ahem. Didn't we already have this conversation? You're *generally* sweet, you're always intelligent and entertaining, and the world is brighter for your presence. I wouldn't read your lj, enjoy occasional meals and hang out once in a while if I didn't enjoy the time with you. Trust me, my time is far too valuable to squander.

While I'm sure you're wonderful in bed (I have heard tales, after all), that's not what I value you for - and I suspect that I'm not alone in valuing you for your mind and spirit.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Eh. I have some virtues and interesting aspects, and thanks for recognizing them. :) It isn't hard to imagine others valuing me at some level -- just that without a deeper emotional connection, it is harder to see why there would be any level of commitment or affection by the other person.

And this likely reflects my own priorities... regardless of how neat or interesting the other person may be, if there's no chance ever of a capital-R relationship then they immediately get moved to my back-burner?

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

*nods* Yes, I noticed that I've been moved out of the kitchen, so to speak. I'm still quite fond of you though, and wish you well in all things. I'll look after you as I do all the folks I'm fond of. YOUR job is just to put up with my pedantic self, sort of like taking one's cod liver oil. *cheeky grin*

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm happy enough to put up with, even appreciate your pedantic self. (wink) Even if internally I tend to think of us as "failed relationship" rather than "friends", per se, since you've seen past more of my defenses than a friend typically would.

[serolynne.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that you have nothing else to offer outside of big-R type of stuff?

Some of my most amazing relationships in my life are people who are "just" (and I use that term very lightly) friends. These are people who there is no official commitments - but people who we are simply there for each other because we care about each other. We enjoy each other's company, enjoy good times together, share our joys and frustrations with, are there to help cushion the pitfalls of life, and inspire each other to be better people, etc. No commitment is needed, because we're simply doing what we want to be doing. Sure, we can't be there for it all for each other, and there's no expectation of that being necessary - but when we are, it's appreciated.

And this is there without expectation of building "more" (ie. romantic relationship / sex / partnership / etc). In fact, when there are non-mutual expectations for more, it really makes things awkward and icky.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I've found that my setting any expectations of "more" is self-defeating, if nothing else. Relationships of whatever flavor have to just flow in their own natural channel, wherever that ends up.

That said, I don't see that I have all that much to offer to just-friends, because absent the deeper emotional connection, or a loving relationship, I tend to keep my walls up and not be completely myself. There are a few exceptions, but not many, and overall my life is dominated by the big-R connections?

[serolynne.livejournal.com]

Hmm.. I guess for me, with my friendships, there is a very deep emotional connection. These are people who accept me for being me, and I don't have walls up around them. I think it's quite possible that your 'sweetie' definition is more in line with what I consider to be my 'friends' definition. And what you're calling friends would be more like folks who are in my social circles, but yet there's not yet a deeper personal connection (yet).


But by and large, I tend to follow the 'let relationships flow into their own natural channel' and not worry so much about the labels.

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

they (and by "they", I mean "I") would bother because they genuinely like you, care about you, enjoy your company and want you to be happy. They would like to be chosen family or a friend, because they love you, but can't be sexual with you. There is a lot of shared experience, shared goodwill, mutual protection, would-never-want-to-hurt-you, and generalized warmth, along with a dollop of the family-of-origin style "love you even when sometimes you drive me crazy" on both sides.

What I don't know is if you're willing to forge a new option, and add another term to this glossary.