From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu

In article <1992Aug14.052503.29487@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>There seems to be *something* which distinguishes friendship and romance.
>If this were not the case, then every friend one had which was of the
>appropriate sex would be considered a romantic partner.  Since this is not
>the case in Real Life (tm), the conclusion must be that friendship and
>romance are different things (even if they overlap).

romance = friendship + chemistry
chemistry = when someone feels a strong attraction to a MOTAS and
wants to do intimate/sexual things with them

>Now, most of the women I've talked to (yes, yes, I know there may be some
>exceptions to this on the net.  I'm talking about women I've talked to
>in person) seem to think that it would be ideal to make friends with
>someone first, *then* start a romance after the friendship is firmly
>established.  Presumably, of course, to determine compatibility issues
>and all that.

I think what they are saying is that they would like to develop a
friendship with someone who they feel chemistry for.

>But I discovered that in Real Life (tm), it doesn't work like that.  Instead,
>what happens is that I make friends with them, the friendship is established,
>and then they say that they couldn't even conceive of a romance with me
>because I'm too much like a brother to them.  I also discovered, in talking
>to my male friends, that they had experienced *exactly* the same thing.

They (and you) are trying to get involved with women who feel no
chemistry towards them.  (This happens to women also, and it happens
for all possible pairings of men and women.)

>Well, it took a few instances of this to cause me to realize that the
>approach I had been taking, which was directly derived from what these
>women *claimed* they preferred, was all wrong.  That is, starting off
>with a friendship is, if the friendship is allowed to develop sufficiently,
>the Wrong Answer (tm).  And this can mean only one thing: that the claims
>that were originally made were *bogus*!

Not necessarily.  You might meet someone who feels chemistry for you,
but isn't comfortable getting romantic with you until getting to know
you better (ie. becoming friends with you).  Once that level of
comfort is established, they may be ready to move to the next stage.

It is also possible that you can develop a friendship with someone who
feels chemistry for you, and never get to the romance stage, if they
feel hurt by your lack of expression of romantic interest in them.
(This happened to me once.)

>Nowadays, of course, if some woman claims that she prefers to develop
>romance from friendship, my bogosity meter goes off.

She might be telling the truth ...

It might help you to find out if your RI (romantic interest) wants to
be involved with people she feels chemistry for from the start, or if
chemistry can develop in her over a period of time.  If the latter,
you might be able to turn a friendship into a romance.  If not,
chances are if she doesn't already feel chemistry for you, your being
friends won't help much.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss