How long between meeting & dating....

[dragonflysky]

I was "just friends" with my first husband initially, and our marriage lasted for 15 years. (It probably wouldn't have lasted this long if we hadn't had children together.) I was instantaneously attracted to my second husband, romantically, and while that relationship/marriage didn't last quite as long as the first, I was far more in love with my second than I ever was with my first. Starting out as "just friends" always fell a bit short of the spark I always hoped for. While I never regretted my first marriage, I did feel like I "cheated" myself a bit....like I was "settling". I considered each of my husbands to be my "best friend" when I was married to them.

[GroundedSpirit]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

..............


How long between meeting someone, establishing a friendship and then establishing a "more than just friends" relationship with a partner?

How long did the "more than just friends" relationship last?


We are wondering because its my opinion that establishing a long term friendship first makes for a higher probability that the "more than friends" relationship will last...

It's his opinion that when people are interested in finding someone for a "more than friends" relationship-they aren't interested in building a "just friends" relationship for extended period of time first.

Hi LR,

Interesting question........but I think it's a 'loaded' question.

First, I think there's inherent bias in the question to start with. Unless of course it's framed around an unspoken desire to BUILD a poly family/tribe. 'Love by design' if you will.
I'm really not sure how many people want to live like that (percentage-wise) vs just opening up and seeing what the universe has to offer them.

Second, I think there's an additional 'load' here that IMPLIES that a 'long term' relationship (another undefined term) has some higher intrinsic value than one that might fall on the other side of the line. (short?)

For myself at least and for K (and others in our network), we don't subscribe to, or live by,that philosophy.

For us, the 'value' or importance in a relationship is not measured by it's duration but by what it brings to us - or we bring to it, by our participation in it. The impact it has on our or other's lives that tend to last forever ! Lesson we learn, love we feel, things that go into the makeup of who we are as people.

Somehow, I couldn't even imagine trying to live & navigate 'life by design'. Some general direction at times - sure. But that direction needs to be flexible. If not we risk missing out on things that could be important to everyone because at a given moment they didn't fit the 'mold'.

Make sense ?

GS

[Jay]

For me it usually went like one of these.

Attraction - lovers - love - friends (me and c )
Friends - attraction - love - lovers ( most of the time)
Attraction - friends - love - lovers ( Joyce)

And one time in my youth
Friends - lovers - friends - lovers - friends ect.


But I guess it's different for everybody.

I never followed these paths on purpose.
More or less just happened that way.

[ray]

I have found (in my limited experience) that my preference is to be friends first, so I can feel comfortable around them and garner up trust. I met O in Nov of 2009, then we became friends in January 2010 and then we became more than friends in June. I've gone on a few dates since then but I just don't like starting out as dating. It feels so awkward and uncertain to me. I think that he's more of an instant person in terms of going into the lovers part first but he was afraid of scaring me off so he took it slow, I think. I find it interesting how there are many different approaches and they are all valid. Growing up, I was told that there was only one way to do things. It's fascinating to see how everyone is different.

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit

Hi LR,

Interesting question........but I think it's a 'loaded' question.

GS

I understand.

But-it's not my intention.

See, I've had "fuck buddies", one night stands, people who were lovers strictly for hte purpose of being lovers etc. That's all cool.


My question only pertains to those who were INTENDING to find a long term, permanent relationship.



See, the quandry is that Maca and I see it differently and he thinks I may just be totally unique (maybe so).


For me personally-if a person is a fuck buddy-they are a fuck buddy. PERIOD.

Where as, if I find someone attractive and the sparks fly-they could go EITHER WAY-if I choose them to be a fuck-buddy, they will NEVER be a part of the family.

On the other hand, if they seem to be potentially a good fit for the family, I will take hte time to build a friendship before taking them as a lover.


Maca says that most people who are looking for long term relaionships will never consider waiting to get to know each other like that if they can't have sex. Which may be true (lucky me I haven't had that problem).

But, for me, I know perfectly well that while I (and they) are in NRE, there is a chemical nightmare going on in our heads that has nothing at all to do with whether or not we're intellectually, lifestyle, future-goal compatible. Great we're sexually compatible-SO WHAT?

IF I'm looking for someone to fill in the entertainment in my sex life THATS PERFECT.
But in terms of someone to be a part of my family (with 5 kids in it)-that's simply not reasonable. ....

Make sense?

[redpepper]

I think there is absolutely people who would put relationship over sex. The connection over gratification. That's been the entire journey I went through with casual sex (and I here I thought I was annoying people with talking about it so much). My journey with Mono has really driven that message home that it is possible. He told me early on that he thought I was being used for sex and not valued for who I am as a person and I have proved that it was true. I took him to task on that statement and he was right.I was used for sex. I have also proven that people can wait or not have sex at all and have a perfectly connected and wonderful relationship. Leo and I are proof of that.

[Morningglory629]

Originally Posted by nycindie

Your question reminds me of one I answered on OKCupid. Here it is:

Which of the following relationship timelines would you most prefer?

1. Attraction > lovers > love > friends
2. Friends > love > attraction > lovers
3. Attraction > friends > love > lovers
4. Attraction > friends > lovers > love

My usual modus operandi with romantic partners is #1. Very rarely am I "friends first" with someone. If that happens, it usually never goes beyond friendship. But I have remained good friends with men who started as lovers.

Interesting conversation. I don't think Just Friends ever really turns into more unless there is sexual attraction...a hotness factor so to speak.

My preferred MO is:[*]Attraction > friends > lovers > love[/LIST][/B]

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by redpepper

I think there is absolutely people who would put relationship over sex. The connection over gratification.

I think the question here is more about what order it happens for people, not whether we prefer one over the other.

[SNeacail]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

Where as, if I find someone attractive and the sparks fly-they could go EITHER WAY-if I choose them to be a fuck-buddy, they will NEVER be a part of the family.

On the other hand, if they seem to be potentially a good fit for the family, I will take hte time to build a friendship before taking them as a lover.

I don't see that taking someone as a lover negates the ability to build a friendship. However, I would never assume they are a good fit for the family until a friendship has been built. I may be in the minority, but until a friendship has been formed, they shouldn't even be introduced to the family (ie. children) at all. In fact the introductions should start with the other adult family memebers and the decission of when it's time to make further introductions should be a mutal decission.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by SNeacail

I don't see that taking someone as a lover negates the ability to build a friendship.

It sure doesn't!

Originally Posted by SNeacail

I may be in the minority, but until a friendship has been formed, they shouldn't even be introduced to the family (ie. children) at all. In fact the introductions should start with the other adult family memebers and the decission of when it's time to make further introductions should be a mutal decission.

So glad I'm childfree and don't need to worry about such things. I only answer to myself!