Lopsided relationship

Oftentimes, we will read that two actors met on a movie shoot or while appearing in a play together and got involved in a torrid love affair, only for it to all fall apart after the film or play is over. A film shoot, especially if far away from home, or a stage production, is an intensely intimate setting, where people are in close proximity with other people for an extended period, actors let their guard down to dig deep into parts of themselves in order to portray characters, and crew members have to cooperate closely with one another, all while everyone is, at the same time, immersed in this insulated small world working together on the project, and perhaps meeting personal challenges that they wouldn't normally have in their everyday life. They eat all their meals together, look out for each other, take risks, and find camaraderie with folks they never would befriend in real life. If one person catches a cold, everyone does. It is intense and it is intimate. So, oftentimes, two co-stars will start up a romance out of that situation, but it doesn't last after the film shoot or play ends.

This is called a showmance.
 
I like this range of opinions, very helpful. I think, especially in polyamory, with all the variety available to us, we have more opportunities throughout our lives to experience intimacy and romance in many degrees of intensity, from mere lust, to fondness, to good friends who desire each other bodies, to full on committed love and romance. Defining the degrees of love can help us qualify what we have going on with various significant others, sometimes at the same time.

This is called a showmance.

OK, and then there's this new word... "bromance." Maybe in a MFM V, the 2 men may not be sexual together, but may be such good friends, and the joy of sharing a woman (perhaps even including heterosexual threesomes where both men are pleasing the woman but not overtly touching each other) and sharing a home could lead to a non-sexual "bromance."
 
This is called a showmance.

I know, but my point is that most people don't know how to handle intimacy, it makes us nervous. So we will romanticize it or sexualize it, just to turned it into something familiar. Which usually backfires. It happens in all sorts of close situations, it's just that a movie set or play is my favorite example.
 
And then there's a FAUXMANCE:

"A fauxmance is the inverse of the better-known “fuck buddy” relationship. We all know how a fuck buddy works. It’s in the name. Rarely is a fuck buddy someone you think is amazing or hang out with all the time, otherwise they’d just be your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner, right? A fauxmance, on the other hand, is a relationship comprising many of the trappings of a romantic relationship, except there’s no sex. And no, I’m not just talking about friendship. I think you can have an intense friendship without ever feeling like there’s any element of romance. A fauxmance is different, and usually involves some romantic feeling on one or both sides. Sound familiar? Here are six ways to tell if you’re in a fauxmance:"

(continued on the link above)
 
If you have a deep intimate connection, and great sex, what about that is NOT romantic? What is the missing factor?

The words "romantic love" connote (or perhaps denote) a kind of almost dizzy, dreamy, blissful or ecstatic state which may include sexual relating and emotional intimacy but is something ... well, more. It's more than sexual bliss, if sexual bliss is largely centered in the area of the body nearest the hips and navel. In romantic love, the bliss in the groin meets with a bliss in the heart (literally in the chest) and the lovers are made at least almost dizzy in joy and ecstasy ... for however long that lasts. It's like a drug trip, sort of. One can deeply love a friend and have amazing emotional intimacy and even amazing sex, but without "romantic love" it never reaches the highest heights of bliss and ecstasy.
 
You want to dump him as your best friend? Why? Now you seem to go the other way. Don't make these things bigger than they have to be. Go easy on yourself in that regard.

You are not able to tell him...

"Hey friend, I need a time out for a little while. I hope you understand that. Don't think I am shutting you out. I value our friendship deeply and don't want to change that. I just need some head space for like X weeks. Your recent break up is triggering me and I realized that I haven't totally processed letting the crush thing go. So I need some time alone to do that and lay it to final rest. It is not something you did. It's something I didn't finish doing.

Let's pretend I went on a vacation for __ weeks. No calls or emails or texts. I'll see you when I get back ok? We can go to a nice lunch and catch up. What date works for you?"​

Best friends can go on vacation away from each other and it isn't the end of the world or the friendship. Set the lunch date and then take the time out you need. Don't make him your focus -- really be like you went away on vacation, and look forward to a nice lunch out when you are back. Lay the crush to rest and then carry on as best friends. Do some things you don't normally do -- take in a museum exhibit or see a play or take a hike or an art class. Shake up the routine.

Galagirl

Well, he was across the country for the last 2 months. I thought that would be a good break. And it was good for me. Then he came back and so did the strong feelings. We haven't had sex, or cuddled or anything. It comes just from spending time with him and talking. That's why I said we can't be best friends anymore. I shouldn't be spending a lot of time with him. We can still be friends but not as close.
 
Back
Top