If you have a friend, you're capable of a relationship

Post Reply New Topic

When I read this on a yahoo dating artcile, I knew the author's intention was to allay most of the desperate dater's worries about their dating potential as almost all people have friends of one sort or another and there is some truth to this statement but I kind of wondered... what about those who don't have a friend? Like, the "loners" of this world?

I almost went... "DAMMIT!! !! DON'T SAY THE IMPLICATION IS TRUE!"

This concept scares the sh*t out of me too.

Despite a deep-seated but consciously suppressed suspicion that it's actually true - I tell myself that I am only capable of deep relationships, romantic or otherwise...

I'd take it this way: it's easier to have a relationship if you first cultivate friendships. Committed relationships are significantly more difficult than friendships because you (usually) spend more time together and have more intimate contact, and therefore more to negotiate. I don't think they meant that if you're a "loner" you will always be alone.

However, you can extrapolate how to behave in a committed relationship by comparing it to a platonic friendship, and assuming that you'll use the same skills more often, and more intensely. Loner or not, it's good to build social skills (which can be learned) - even if you do so occasionally and very gradually.

That's pure bull. Friendship and a romantic relationship have nothing to do. I am married, and I do not have friends (unless ou count m husband, but we were never "friends", there were romantic implications from the very begining). And I know a lady who has a lot of very good, close friends, but is not able of having a romantic relationship.

That's all based on the NT mindset. To most NT's (not all, but most), "friends" are merely acquaintances, and how well regarded they are in each others' eyes varies based on the person. Some people are more than willing to step on their friends if it boosts their own status, while others may respect their friends' feelings but regardless still be fairly distant from them. Same applies to their approach to romantic relationships. Overall, many NT's (and some aspies as well) have a fairly selfish mindset. No friend is worth one's own status to some people. Regardless, the intricate social maneuvering that NT's do is common to getting both friends and relationships. Overall, I wouldn't say the advice was "wrong", but more a sign of an NT that doesn't understand aspies.

I disagree - and I should point out that I'm married as well.

However, our definition of "friends" may be different. I'm by no means considering that friendship needs to be that NT-chit-chatty-you-hang-up-first sort of thing. Nor do your friendships have to be close, or deep, or anything of the sort, nor are they a requirement to a relationship...but they're a good first step.

Females have it far easier since they're not doing the asking (And if they are, rejection is far less likely), so I don't think the maxim quite applies to females. And your assumption that this "lady" is incapable of romance is ... well, possibly unfounded. It might take an attitude adjustment and/or the finding of the "right person", but it's probably possible.

friends don't mind if you're hideously ugly though.

+ they don't care about many things like how successful, experienced, humorous...etc , and are far more tolerant toward your faults ......

I agree with anna.

I think it's quite the opposite: if you have a relationship then you are certainty capable of having friends.

But having a friend doesn't guarantee that you're capable of having a relationship.

I wonder - do guys on this forum so frequently say this because they themselves would do anything that has a vagina? this is a legitimate question and not a rhetoric one.



why would this not work on a male?

*reacting to a flash of chilling foresight, Grisha runs away from thread screaming*

Saying that "if you have a friend, you're capable of a relationship" isn't the same as saying "if you don't have a friend, you aren't capable of a relationship".

Saying "if you have wings, you can fly" is also not the same as "if you don't have wings, you can't fly". You could be flying on your magic carpet without wings, or maybe you bought a plane ticket.

I'm aware of that logic, but stating a version of the statement "If you have or don't have friends, you're capable of a relationship" is functionally equivalent to "You're capable of a relationship", which is obviously not what the author was implying. He was saying "Because you have the ability for friendship, you're capable of a particular type of "friendship" with someone who likes you.(I.e., a relationship)". He explained it in the article.

Last edited by swbluto on 02 Aug 2011, 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Deja vu works well for predicting future arguments when the claim is weak or weakly supported. However, we can see that's not the case...

LOL, what? Can you explain the basis of the "I'd do anything that has a vagina thus I frequently claim that females have it easier." claim?




There are far greater expectations for males that eliminates a sizable minority, whereas there are fewer expectations for females other than to not be bitchy. And, even then, that's usually not a permanent obstacle.

try reading it this way: "I'd do anything that has a vagina thus I believe women have it easier."




should we be biting our tongues off then? how do you define "bitchy" anyway? if I say my only expectation is for the guy not to be a "jerk" it would be just as vague