Valley Girl With a Brain

...is that no one ever announces "Ok, we've achieved successful Friends status and are now ready to proceed to whatever Step #2 is (dating/hooking up/going steady/being lovers/soulmates/marriage) -- in short, the infamous next level". Most people see friendship as a primary relationship in and of itself, not as a way-station on the road to something bigger and better. It's all the more confusing when friendship is offered as a consolation prize.

Any man knows that to be told by a woman that she thinks of you as a friend is to be told to keep your hands to yourself. It is typically the woman who tries to impose the "friends first" limitation on the man, when what she really means is there's not going to be any sex (aka "going slow", aka "down boy, down!") because she seems to think the most salient aspect of friendship is not having sex, or maybe because she wants traditional courtship and/or thinks the man has to prove himself to her first (rarely is it the other way around) but can't put it that way. Let's act like we're "just friends" even though we're really dating.

This all sorta misses Eric Berne's point that "the essence of friendship is that there is no active Parental ego state under ordinary conditions. That is, friends do not criticize each other in a Parent-to-Child way, although they may give each other advice." In other words, friends don't tend to unilaterally lay down the law on the other person the way parents do with their children. And especially not before any actual relationship has developed. (One sees this "friends first" business all the time as the headline in women's personals ads on singles sites.) I mean, who's gonna actually be friends with someone, much less court them, when the first thing they do is start dictating the terms of the relationship? (A: the weasel — the guy with no other options who hangs around under false pretenses hoping to eventually be rewarded for playing by the rules.)

I think it's all this disingenuousness -- maybe it's simple confusion, maybe it's just a bad euphemism or a cop-out -- which leads to "friends first" not working so well.

I know that eventually falling for a guy or girl who likes you but has opted for the friendship consolation prize can work, but two people who originally aren't attracted are a lot less likely to get together.
In most cases I've seen, one partner has hidden their attraction, whether from the start or after a failed courting attempt, and has been biding their time.

Yet again, Ms. Kim misses the mark.

I am living proof that you can indeed be friends first. That's how my husband and I started out. Non-romantic friendship turned into something more. Something more has turned into 25 wonderful years and a beautiful family. And you know what? We not only deeply love each other, we LIKE each other. And that's the benefit of a foundation of true friendship!

Are you kidding me? Sorry but my friends require character and someone who is NOT accountable for their actions they have consented to/actively participated in because of retrospective guilt or shame doesn't fit that bill.

Friends first just leads to confusion. There is no definite point when friendship becomes romance and it leaves the relationship in a constant limbo of are we friends? are we dating? and then heaven forbid it doesn't work out. Frankly, when i'm friends with a women and she starts trying to make the relationship more, i find myself offended and a little hurt. It makes me question the entire basis of the friendship. It's the sneak attack you see in movies all the time, when the "geeky guy" befriends the hot girl that he is in love with. While he is waiting to pounce when the time is right. That's disrespectful to the friendship.

Cliffs-

I agree with the author.

That "heart racing" Jen is more likely to be fear. "Whenever there is an other, fear arises". And how does one disguise, repress, distract from such fear (tension)? Well, by release. In this case sexual release (from sexual tension, or, "fear of other"). However "release" is always only temporary because tension will always re-establish ("release" is not "transcending" such as in "transcendental love"). The common sexual relationship is one of tension/release/tension.....
When the honeymoon period wanes the sexual tension is merely replaced by other tensions; financial, social, children,....
So I agree in sex with a friend. Sex with a well established friend. A friend that you have grown to know in all circumstances. Someone you know, or have witnessed performing, in all possible circumstance (their variety of other types of relationships, hardships, misfortunes and fortunes). Sexual chemistry is not static. It changes as you change. People who only rely on initial sexual chemistry are merely relying of their childhood emotional state. The state that reflects and tends to recreate the sexual/emotional and political state of one's parents and society of that child time. The species survival instinct will take the path of least resistance merely to procreate. And the "least resistant path" is the un-resolved, non-transcended (into True Adulthood) childhood emotional state. This is why apparent "adults" behave childishly for all their lives through their emotional/chemical/sexual/romance addictions. Not Love.

How is it that the Valley Girl "with a brain" is either so superficial or unflinchingly stubborn as to make up her mind about any potential partner within 30 seconds and then stick with that permanently?

The best relationship of my life was with someone who didn't really impress me for the first few months.

Doesn't PT have any sort of standards about whose blog they publish? The views expressed here are so immature, they're an embarrassment. Drunkenly making out with every guy you find remotely attractive only means you're a slut, Valley Girl. It's not just that I think you're wrong, but I expect a little more thoughtful self-examination from these blogs.

I'm a girl who has had many fulfilling male friendships. Some of them I find very attractive physically , some I'm not drooling over. However, all of them are excellent people whom I care deeply about, but for whatever reason (I'm in a relationship; they're in a relationship; they're recently single; we live in different states; different goals in life; different ideas about child-raising)I'm not dating. It isn't necessarily the lack of opportunity, but the maturity of knowing that had we dated, it wouldn't have lasted very long because of conflicting expectation and the fact we were not ready for a committed relationship.

wow.. didn't psychology today used to be a respectable publication, or am I thinking of something else?

I agree with the article that "Friends First" just doesn't work if you want a fulfilling relationship. I am not saying that it’s not possible, but most of these relationships are out of convenience and without magic. It's these relationships that are most likely to end in break ups or cheating. I have female friends and I can NEVER imagine myself with them because there is no chemistry. It’s not for me. Sorry. “Friends First” is basically an arrange marriage with Western standards.