Interesting. This raises the question of what should be considered an "orientation" vs just "a trait you currently have."
An orientation implies that something is innate, unchangeable, fine, and must be accepted by society.
"A trait you currently have" on the other hand, might be good -- but also it might be holding you back, making you and others less happy, etc.
How sure are you that your current approach to friendship is the former, not the latter? As someone in the middle (I think) of the friends-initiating distribution, it feels like I could increase or decrease this a good deal if it would make my/others lives better to do so. So, it does not feel like an orientation.
(As an aside, a similar criticism has been made of Myers-Briggs -- namely that, if interpreted as prescriptive rather than merely descriptive, it can lead people to create self-reinforcing stereotypes for themselves. Making everything an orientation could do the same.)
This is very insightful and enlightening – for me anyways.
I'm Sad now that I realize that I've often thought about, e.g. flakiness, as something blameworthy. That's particularly Sad because I think I'm generally pretty good at charity, even towards much worse behavior!
I've long thought about the differences in 'friendship styles', tho without the convenient handles this post provides. Most of my friends are individual relationships, tho there are some weak ties to specific groups too; tho almost all pretty small groups. I also enjoy many weak, but still intimate, relationships with people I regularly encounter, like neighbors, or shop owners.
One difference might be that I was _somewhat_ able to be a (weak) 'top' in otherwise tenuous friendships. My 'hack' was to, when I learned a friend's birthday, add it to my calendar. Contacting people on their birthdays seems like a reasonable Schelling point and a good way to maintain minimal, but still regular, contact.
Sadly, I just started removing friend's birthdays from my calendar – because they weren't even contacting me on my birthday. I think I'm just missing friends (and a romantic relationship) and – so you've convinced me – unfairly punishing my distant bottom-friends out of resentment. (I want some (more) friends that wish _me_ a happy birthday!) I think now, thanks to you, that I should maintain the distinction between what kind of 'friend activity' I want, and what any particular friend is capable/willing to give me.
I think one aspect tho that's still hard, for some people (e.g. me), to handle is 'flaky talk'. It's hard (for me) to reliably translate what flaky people say into reasonable expectations. I haven't been able to entirely dismiss any expectations without also falling into 'friend nihilism'. Maybe it's unavoidable that each friendship has to be independently calibrated.
I’ve struggled with the feeling that I should be acting certain ways in friendships a lot. It’s incredible how judgey people can get when relationships are imbalanced in terms of effort. I guess they are protecting themselves from others’ opportunistic free riding? It really punishes those who are built different though.
For me, the orientation framing isn’t ideal, because I find my ability to invest effort into my friendships changes, and is also dependent on life circumstances. My personal frame is that I have executive functioning, energy and anxiety difficulties (autism lel) that impact my ability to put effort into relationships. This lowers the pool of people who will befriend me, but I remain open to befriending both tops and bottoms. I think if I had all my challenges accommodated completely, my natural orientation would be top, but I’m ok with how things are now.
Do you have any of the energy etc stuff going on, or is it purely preference? Either is valid imo
I read this a long time ago, and I found it again by chance. I'm interested about the fact that your primary relationships are your family and your partner - I'm assuming family is exclusive to people who are related to you by blood/raised you or were raised in the same home as you. In this sense, I wonder if you don't feel as though you could feel a connection to a friend that is familial or natural in that way? I wonder if it is a question of having a really good relationship to your relatives and that being enough, or maybe the inherent sense of loyalty that comes with 'blood' - you know 'family comes first' and all. When people escalate their romantic relationships through marriage, having kids, the partner also becomes family. I'm rambling, but I feel so differently about this and it is surprising to read this perspective. I don't know what I'm asking maybe... Is there something less rewarding about when you do spend time with friends after they initiate, is it just more pleasurable or easy showing up for family and no other relationship if not romantic? Have you ever felt a sense of euphoria and deep intimacy with friends? I've read a few interesting texts on the element of romance in friendship, not what you may initially think... Have you ever felt a sense of friendship with a romantic partner, maybe before having initiated a relationship?
You also say that friendship is "valourized" in our current moment... that "marriage doesn't last but friends are forever" is apparently a common belief right now. I think just because more conversations about what people want or do not appreciate from friends are being had does not mean that there has been a true shift. I don't know of a type of relationship more pushed on people or seen as more aspirational and essential to achieve wholeness than being in a monogamous relationship - especially a marriage. The stigma around being, for example, a single woman after a 'certain age' as they say... the shame in 'remaining a bachelor' and not settling down. It is actually pretty accepted that 'after college, you lose friends" or "once you have kids and settle down, friendship takes a backseat".
Interesting. This raises the question of what should be considered an "orientation" vs just "a trait you currently have."
An orientation implies that something is innate, unchangeable, fine, and must be accepted by society.
"A trait you currently have" on the other hand, might be good -- but also it might be holding you back, making you and others less happy, etc.
How sure are you that your current approach to friendship is the former, not the latter? As someone in the middle (I think) of the friends-initiating distribution, it feels like I could increase or decrease this a good deal if it would make my/others lives better to do so. So, it does not feel like an orientation.
(As an aside, a similar criticism has been made of Myers-Briggs -- namely that, if interpreted as prescriptive rather than merely descriptive, it can lead people to create self-reinforcing stereotypes for themselves. Making everything an orientation could do the same.)
This is very insightful and enlightening – for me anyways.
I'm Sad now that I realize that I've often thought about, e.g. flakiness, as something blameworthy. That's particularly Sad because I think I'm generally pretty good at charity, even towards much worse behavior!
I've long thought about the differences in 'friendship styles', tho without the convenient handles this post provides. Most of my friends are individual relationships, tho there are some weak ties to specific groups too; tho almost all pretty small groups. I also enjoy many weak, but still intimate, relationships with people I regularly encounter, like neighbors, or shop owners.
One difference might be that I was _somewhat_ able to be a (weak) 'top' in otherwise tenuous friendships. My 'hack' was to, when I learned a friend's birthday, add it to my calendar. Contacting people on their birthdays seems like a reasonable Schelling point and a good way to maintain minimal, but still regular, contact.
Sadly, I just started removing friend's birthdays from my calendar – because they weren't even contacting me on my birthday. I think I'm just missing friends (and a romantic relationship) and – so you've convinced me – unfairly punishing my distant bottom-friends out of resentment. (I want some (more) friends that wish _me_ a happy birthday!) I think now, thanks to you, that I should maintain the distinction between what kind of 'friend activity' I want, and what any particular friend is capable/willing to give me.
I think one aspect tho that's still hard, for some people (e.g. me), to handle is 'flaky talk'. It's hard (for me) to reliably translate what flaky people say into reasonable expectations. I haven't been able to entirely dismiss any expectations without also falling into 'friend nihilism'. Maybe it's unavoidable that each friendship has to be independently calibrated.
I’ve struggled with the feeling that I should be acting certain ways in friendships a lot. It’s incredible how judgey people can get when relationships are imbalanced in terms of effort. I guess they are protecting themselves from others’ opportunistic free riding? It really punishes those who are built different though.
For me, the orientation framing isn’t ideal, because I find my ability to invest effort into my friendships changes, and is also dependent on life circumstances. My personal frame is that I have executive functioning, energy and anxiety difficulties (autism lel) that impact my ability to put effort into relationships. This lowers the pool of people who will befriend me, but I remain open to befriending both tops and bottoms. I think if I had all my challenges accommodated completely, my natural orientation would be top, but I’m ok with how things are now.
Do you have any of the energy etc stuff going on, or is it purely preference? Either is valid imo
I read this a long time ago, and I found it again by chance. I'm interested about the fact that your primary relationships are your family and your partner - I'm assuming family is exclusive to people who are related to you by blood/raised you or were raised in the same home as you. In this sense, I wonder if you don't feel as though you could feel a connection to a friend that is familial or natural in that way? I wonder if it is a question of having a really good relationship to your relatives and that being enough, or maybe the inherent sense of loyalty that comes with 'blood' - you know 'family comes first' and all. When people escalate their romantic relationships through marriage, having kids, the partner also becomes family. I'm rambling, but I feel so differently about this and it is surprising to read this perspective. I don't know what I'm asking maybe... Is there something less rewarding about when you do spend time with friends after they initiate, is it just more pleasurable or easy showing up for family and no other relationship if not romantic? Have you ever felt a sense of euphoria and deep intimacy with friends? I've read a few interesting texts on the element of romance in friendship, not what you may initially think... Have you ever felt a sense of friendship with a romantic partner, maybe before having initiated a relationship?
You also say that friendship is "valourized" in our current moment... that "marriage doesn't last but friends are forever" is apparently a common belief right now. I think just because more conversations about what people want or do not appreciate from friends are being had does not mean that there has been a true shift. I don't know of a type of relationship more pushed on people or seen as more aspirational and essential to achieve wholeness than being in a monogamous relationship - especially a marriage. The stigma around being, for example, a single woman after a 'certain age' as they say... the shame in 'remaining a bachelor' and not settling down. It is actually pretty accepted that 'after college, you lose friends" or "once you have kids and settle down, friendship takes a backseat".
I think I understand now why you didn’t want to swap numbers after our lovely, explicitly non-romantic chat at the Meetup. 😌 I like your writing.