From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: "We could still be friends"
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:56:24 GMT

David Barrett (deb@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu) wrote:

: >>What do you do when someone says "I really like you, but it'll never be
: >>anything more"?

: >But more times than not, when a person says this, he or she really means
: >it and doesn't change his or her mind.
: 
: The hard part of hearing such a statement is that it gives a double message thatis a contradiction and usually the first part is dishonest if the unrealistic
: second part is meant.  To keep from being optimistic about "they didn't really
: mean it", probably better to write it off rather than wait for the possibly
: confused person to make up their minds.  The likelyhood of changing their minds
: again in the future is suggested by default.

Ed jumps into the fray with his asbestos underwear:

To hear someone say this annoys me, because I consider a romantic relationship
a *possible* outgrowth of a friendship - not the only one, merely a possibility.
To lock one out of one's life forever and ever this way is to deny that that
psrt of you is ever accessible to your "friend".  I agree with David - it *is*
a dishonest statement.  What is often meant is "well, either I don't have the
heart to tell you to get lost, or I see some personal advantage to using you,
so I'll just LJBF you, and that way I can have my cake and eat it, too."

The types of women who do this are very often the ones who, time after time,
get involved with men who manipulate them, use them, then dump them, leaving
them "heartbroken".  They seldom realize that it's *their* selection process
that is faulty, and they are denying the infinite goodness of the universe
that is reaching out to them via friends to give them love, preferring to
waste their time chasing men who are obviously not good for them.  "All men
are jerks" is their war cry, preferring to externalize the problem instead of
taking a hard look at themselves and *why* they are attracted to men who
abuse them.

I don't think I've *ever* told a woman "we'll never be more than friends"
because I understand that love takes time to grow - and if what I feel now
isn't love, that doesn't mean that I won't grow to love them in the future.
That's where IMHO many women make that mistake - they assume that "chemistry"
is the sole decisive factor in deciding whether or not to pursue a relationship.
If it isn't there right from the start, they assume that they will never be
"in love" with that person.  But is "chemistry" love?  Certainly not.  I have
known many, many people who have been together for many years, happily, and
when they first met they either hated each other or were indifferent to each
other.  Certainly, there was *something* that kept them around, whether it
was mutual interests, circumstances, or just plain stubbornness - and that
gave love the time it needed to grow.  This "chemistry" stuff that I hear
women dishing out to seemingly evade personal responsibility isn't love -
very often, it's hormones.

The universe is infinite in its ability to give you love - why not open
yourself to *all* its manifestations, instead of stubbornly insisting that
the universe do things your way?  I have almost always found that then I
try and twist the universe into doing things "my way" it doesn't work.
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: alt.romance