Relationship Vectors
When thinking about how I interact with other people, there are generally three categories I use to understand the shape of the relationship. These are a bit like vectors: a given relationship could be anywhere on each x, y and z axis.
Friendship
I describe as "friends" people whose personalities I like, whom I have respect for, and whose company delights me. I want my friends to be happy, but there is a high degree of autonomy involved: their happiness does not have to come through me, although it can. I will support their endeavours and share resources to some extent. It is a non-possessive environment, and a low-commitment one: meaning here, I would not consider a friendship as a factor in decisions about my life. However, friendships do have a long-term perspective, ideally anyway: someone I had spent a long time building a friendship with, I'd also like to keep around for the long haul. It is known that having good friends is one factor in personal happiness, so it seems sensible to me to keep friends around you whom you know to be good people.
Lust
This describes people I have a sexual interest in. I'm trying to decide whether it also covers play partners - it's not quite the same thing, but they seem to me to have some parallels. So, carnal desires generally: these are people who I have some "chemistry" with, whom I like to touch and be touched by. Like friends, I want lovers to be happy: but it's a slightly more possessive environment, potentially, in that I would prefer them to get their kicks with me rather than with others, and/or pay attention to me when we are around one another[1]. Commitment can be low or medium; of course people have responsibilities here in terms of keeping each other safe, as sex and play both carry higher risks than meeting for a drink. But again, I would probably not include lovers in life-changing decisions, unless other factors were in play. Longevity is possibly lower than with friends, for me, since I have a stronger interest in new explorations than familiar comforts.
Romance
This is the most difficult one to define - much better minds than mine have been trying to define "love" for much longer than I've been alive, let alone thinking about it, after all - and I will probably have to do it mainly by contrasting it with the other two vectors. So: friendship vs romance: and immediately it becomes tricky, because I'm not sure I've experienced a romantic interest in someone I didn't also like as a friend. But let's assume it's theoretically possible to fall for someone you don't really like - what does "falling for" mean? Can't stop thinking about, want to be in the presence of... but that feels like it's veering off into obsession pretty quickly, doesn't it? OK, let's try romance vs lust: I suppose you could fall in love with someone and not desire them carnally, although again, I struggle to think of an example in my own life. I do sometimes meet new people whom I'm incredibly enthusiastic about even if I don't want to sleep with them: but that could, and often does, apply to relationships in the friends sphere, because I just happen to really enjoy learning about a person who interests me.
In terms of real-life examples, it is something of a numbers game. Of all the many people I've met and will meet, the vast majority will remain acquaintances (friendly disposition, low interest, low joint experiences); some will become friends (continuing mutual interest, some degree of intimacy mostly in form of deep conversations; if non-platonic, there will usually only be a phase of lust/romance which is later subsumed into the ongoing friendship); a smaller number will be lovers and/or play partners (following a risk assessment and in the presence of a mutual interest in fulfilling carnal desires). As hinted above, friends and lovers are not mutually exclusive groups, and in fact my preferred type of relationships is with people who are both. So would it not be possible to (re)classify all of my relationships with all the people I've met in these terms? Or is Romance a special vector that applies only to the very few - in Hollywood mythology, "The One", even?
I've mentioned other factors above, like commitment, possessiveness, obligation, longevity. What about people whom I feel committed to, meaning their wishes play a role in my life-changing decisions? What about people whom I feel possessive over? I generally get a kick out of being considered special or unique in some way; I have certain talents and skills, and I like these to be acknowledged and think it's a good idea if people make use of what I have rather than demand I do things I'm not good at; isn't possessiveness just an extreme form of this, perhaps with a sprinkling of Alpha behaviour? Then there's obligation: especially in friendships, there's a level of give and take that feels roughly in balance, but sometimes there are situations where one person gives something the other is unable to reciprocate. This creates a separate dynamic; it can be discharged by either sticking around each other until an opportunity arises to repay the debt, or people find an equivalent but not identical form of repayment. Finally, it seems to me that some long-term friends happen nearly by accident: your life choices bring you into each other's company frequently enough to maintain your level of friendship, and before you know it, 10 or 20 years pass and you have all this history to look back on. But what about situations where you decide that longevity will be a design feature of your relationship with a specific person?
I can't shift the idea that romance is distinct from friendship and lust, even though I've so far failed to define what it is. So let's try some other ideas people have had about Love. One persistent idea is that love means putting the other person's happiness above your own. There are obvious issues with this - abuse, one-sidedness, the fact that carelessly or automatically negating your own needs leads to some very sticky psychological situations - but it also strikes me that this is a feeling parents say they have about their children, so calling it "romance" doesn't seem to be right here. Another idea is that Love means devotion (a somewhat related idea...): aside from ardour and dedication, devotion to me brings to mind a spiritual dimension. Depending on your path, adoring your partner in lieu of the God or Goddess and/or carrying out acts as devotions to them are fine choices; but devotion is a perfectly adequate word already, conflating it with romance doesn't seem to help. So, what about Love as Destiny[2]? Sometimes it can feel like you are fated to intertwine your life with another's; even if you try to redefine your interaction in terms of friendship or lust, some other dimension keeps sneaking in and throwing your careful constructs overboard. I've experienced this, so perhaps it comes closest to my definition... Fate =|= Romance exactly, because Fate is the larger entity, so maybe Romance could be a specific instance of Fate.
Well, this thought process didn't wind up at all where I intended it to! I figured Friendship, Lust and Romance were pretty clear-cut vectors, but instead I've wound up noodling at length about romance, and the conclusion still doesn't feel entirely satisfying[3]. I think there are three options for defining romance at this point: 1, it just is a specific instance of Fate, my doubts be damned; 2, it's a "je ne sais quoi" factor above and beyond the other two vectors, maybe containing elements of the other ideas I've mentioned; or 3, something else I haven't thought of yet. My inadequacy as a thinker aside, it seems plausible to me that I don't have sufficient data to extrapolate from. So, gentle reader, over to you: got any thoughts on what romance could be defined as?
--
[1] I'm still working out whether this is always a given, or something I could work on changing.
[2] Leaving aside philosophical debates about whether destiny, fate, karma and related concepts are real, or whether free will is the final card that trumps all. My premise for this argument is that there is a causative force outside of human Will, which we can call the Tao or God or The All if we like; I don't think that this means that free will does not exist or that our lives are predetermined in every small detail.
[3] In essence, I can't see an argument that Romance is not (part of) Destiny, but that's not a positive identification or definition, therefore feels half-done.
Friendship
I describe as "friends" people whose personalities I like, whom I have respect for, and whose company delights me. I want my friends to be happy, but there is a high degree of autonomy involved: their happiness does not have to come through me, although it can. I will support their endeavours and share resources to some extent. It is a non-possessive environment, and a low-commitment one: meaning here, I would not consider a friendship as a factor in decisions about my life. However, friendships do have a long-term perspective, ideally anyway: someone I had spent a long time building a friendship with, I'd also like to keep around for the long haul. It is known that having good friends is one factor in personal happiness, so it seems sensible to me to keep friends around you whom you know to be good people.
Lust
This describes people I have a sexual interest in. I'm trying to decide whether it also covers play partners - it's not quite the same thing, but they seem to me to have some parallels. So, carnal desires generally: these are people who I have some "chemistry" with, whom I like to touch and be touched by. Like friends, I want lovers to be happy: but it's a slightly more possessive environment, potentially, in that I would prefer them to get their kicks with me rather than with others, and/or pay attention to me when we are around one another[1]. Commitment can be low or medium; of course people have responsibilities here in terms of keeping each other safe, as sex and play both carry higher risks than meeting for a drink. But again, I would probably not include lovers in life-changing decisions, unless other factors were in play. Longevity is possibly lower than with friends, for me, since I have a stronger interest in new explorations than familiar comforts.
Romance
This is the most difficult one to define - much better minds than mine have been trying to define "love" for much longer than I've been alive, let alone thinking about it, after all - and I will probably have to do it mainly by contrasting it with the other two vectors. So: friendship vs romance: and immediately it becomes tricky, because I'm not sure I've experienced a romantic interest in someone I didn't also like as a friend. But let's assume it's theoretically possible to fall for someone you don't really like - what does "falling for" mean? Can't stop thinking about, want to be in the presence of... but that feels like it's veering off into obsession pretty quickly, doesn't it? OK, let's try romance vs lust: I suppose you could fall in love with someone and not desire them carnally, although again, I struggle to think of an example in my own life. I do sometimes meet new people whom I'm incredibly enthusiastic about even if I don't want to sleep with them: but that could, and often does, apply to relationships in the friends sphere, because I just happen to really enjoy learning about a person who interests me.
In terms of real-life examples, it is something of a numbers game. Of all the many people I've met and will meet, the vast majority will remain acquaintances (friendly disposition, low interest, low joint experiences); some will become friends (continuing mutual interest, some degree of intimacy mostly in form of deep conversations; if non-platonic, there will usually only be a phase of lust/romance which is later subsumed into the ongoing friendship); a smaller number will be lovers and/or play partners (following a risk assessment and in the presence of a mutual interest in fulfilling carnal desires). As hinted above, friends and lovers are not mutually exclusive groups, and in fact my preferred type of relationships is with people who are both. So would it not be possible to (re)classify all of my relationships with all the people I've met in these terms? Or is Romance a special vector that applies only to the very few - in Hollywood mythology, "The One", even?
I've mentioned other factors above, like commitment, possessiveness, obligation, longevity. What about people whom I feel committed to, meaning their wishes play a role in my life-changing decisions? What about people whom I feel possessive over? I generally get a kick out of being considered special or unique in some way; I have certain talents and skills, and I like these to be acknowledged and think it's a good idea if people make use of what I have rather than demand I do things I'm not good at; isn't possessiveness just an extreme form of this, perhaps with a sprinkling of Alpha behaviour? Then there's obligation: especially in friendships, there's a level of give and take that feels roughly in balance, but sometimes there are situations where one person gives something the other is unable to reciprocate. This creates a separate dynamic; it can be discharged by either sticking around each other until an opportunity arises to repay the debt, or people find an equivalent but not identical form of repayment. Finally, it seems to me that some long-term friends happen nearly by accident: your life choices bring you into each other's company frequently enough to maintain your level of friendship, and before you know it, 10 or 20 years pass and you have all this history to look back on. But what about situations where you decide that longevity will be a design feature of your relationship with a specific person?
I can't shift the idea that romance is distinct from friendship and lust, even though I've so far failed to define what it is. So let's try some other ideas people have had about Love. One persistent idea is that love means putting the other person's happiness above your own. There are obvious issues with this - abuse, one-sidedness, the fact that carelessly or automatically negating your own needs leads to some very sticky psychological situations - but it also strikes me that this is a feeling parents say they have about their children, so calling it "romance" doesn't seem to be right here. Another idea is that Love means devotion (a somewhat related idea...): aside from ardour and dedication, devotion to me brings to mind a spiritual dimension. Depending on your path, adoring your partner in lieu of the God or Goddess and/or carrying out acts as devotions to them are fine choices; but devotion is a perfectly adequate word already, conflating it with romance doesn't seem to help. So, what about Love as Destiny[2]? Sometimes it can feel like you are fated to intertwine your life with another's; even if you try to redefine your interaction in terms of friendship or lust, some other dimension keeps sneaking in and throwing your careful constructs overboard. I've experienced this, so perhaps it comes closest to my definition... Fate =|= Romance exactly, because Fate is the larger entity, so maybe Romance could be a specific instance of Fate.
Well, this thought process didn't wind up at all where I intended it to! I figured Friendship, Lust and Romance were pretty clear-cut vectors, but instead I've wound up noodling at length about romance, and the conclusion still doesn't feel entirely satisfying[3]. I think there are three options for defining romance at this point: 1, it just is a specific instance of Fate, my doubts be damned; 2, it's a "je ne sais quoi" factor above and beyond the other two vectors, maybe containing elements of the other ideas I've mentioned; or 3, something else I haven't thought of yet. My inadequacy as a thinker aside, it seems plausible to me that I don't have sufficient data to extrapolate from. So, gentle reader, over to you: got any thoughts on what romance could be defined as?
--
[1] I'm still working out whether this is always a given, or something I could work on changing.
[2] Leaving aside philosophical debates about whether destiny, fate, karma and related concepts are real, or whether free will is the final card that trumps all. My premise for this argument is that there is a causative force outside of human Will, which we can call the Tao or God or The All if we like; I don't think that this means that free will does not exist or that our lives are predetermined in every small detail.
[3] In essence, I can't see an argument that Romance is not (part of) Destiny, but that's not a positive identification or definition, therefore feels half-done.