Lethargic Man (anag.)

That's such a loaded question...

And quite honestly, I don't have an answer, I don't even have a trace of an answer, which is probably one of the reasons _I'm_ single... All I can say is that personality dynamics that work in a friendship can be deadly to a relationship; and that - at least for some people - a relationship that shares core values works better than one that shares interests, if you have to compromise on one of the two.

Also, if you share _all_ interests with a friend, that's not a problem, because you'll go home at the end of the day and live seperate lives, but in a relationship you might end up needing a private space, one area of your life in which your partner might take a polite interest _and nothing else_.

From:

Do you think that two human beings exist who share all interests ?

From:

It's unlikely, but I met my ex through a shared love of three things that are important in my life: horses, SF/Fantasy, and usenet. (And a lot of other overlapping interests.) Which made for a lively friendship, we always had things to discuss. But once it had developed into a relationship, the fact that we did share so much sometimes made it difficult to close the door and be alone; not to speak of not being able to talk freely on usenet for several years without him popping up and trying to make me look bad...

From:

liv

Me and

pseudomonas came pretty close. And it really wasn't a great basis for a relationship, either.

From:

How about "necessary but not sufficient", then?

From:

liv

Nnnoo, not really. I don't think sharing all interests is a criterion for being friends with someone in the first place. In more general terms, yes, being friends is necessary but not sufficient for a successful relationship. But sharing interests is somewhat of a red herring here.

From:

I meant that sharing interests is necessary but not sufficient for a good long-term relationship.

From:

I'd pur it slightly differently; I think a certain degree of common ground is essential, for good communication, mutual understanding and the like, and that shared interests can be a good [ but not perfect ] indicator of such.

I also think there's something to be said for having a reasonable nuber of not-previously-shared interests to which one can introduce the other party, and vice versa, because showing people new cool things is such fun.

From:

I have an answer, which is, absolutely and utterly not; among the things humans do that seem most alien to me is thinking of long-term mates as anything other than among the best and closest friends you're ever going to get. This approach seems to work rather well, in terms of me ending up with close connestions with people I care about.

I suspect this won't surprise you in the slightest.

From:

That way round, yes. A partner who is not a close friend, who is not someone in whose company I feel utterly comfortable and safe - that's unthinkable. But I have a good friend who, for much of our relationship, was not exactly good relationship material (he's now happily married with kids, who'd have thunk); great friendships do not make for great relationships; and the other way round I have seen people grow very close who did not start out as best friends.

From:

songster.livejournal.com

Of course one should look for many of the same qualities in a long-term mate as one should in a close friend - these being qualities necessary to establishing a long-term close relationship.

However, assuming by "mate" you mean a sexual relationship, then you should also look for sexual attraction (and other qualities that lead to sexual attraction, which will depend on your individual preferences). These qualities are *not* a necessary (or even usually a desirable) trait in a close friend.

Surely this is all fairly obvious?

From:

Surely this is all fairly obvious?

Just checking! :o) (Because I have seen people arguing otherwise, though I doubt that would be appropriate for myself.)

From:

These qualities are *not* a necessary (or even usually a desirable) trait in a close friend.

Depends on how you're wired; I've found it more often than not a net plus myself, but then pretty much all of what I find attractive in people is stuff that becomes manifest in the context of a friendship.

From:

liv

I think there are definitely overlapping qualities. But there are some configurations that work well in a friendship and not necessarily so well in a romantic relationship. And you probably want more compatibilities from a mate;

songster mentioned sexual attraction. And you could probably deal with a friend who had massive philosophical differences from you in a way that might be more damaging in a couple relationship.

I am not the person to ask because I've never had or looked for a "mate" as such. I have also never been involved in any way with anyone who wasn't also a friend, and I really wouldn't want to. But I have variously:

got together with someone who was already my best friend, and found that we were less good as a couple than as best friends

got together with someone I considered a soul-mate but didn't actually know that well yet, and found that the attempted relationship broke the friendship, to my great chagrin

got together with someone I was madly in love with and found that the relationship really strengthened the friendship we'd had to start with.

And then there was my relationship with you which had pretty much all the positives. We were friends already, we got to be closer through going out, we created something that was heading in a somewhat romantic direction even if neither of us got terribly soppy over it. So in that case, the qualities that made us friends also made us a good couple, I would argue. Except for that annoying thing where you want kids and I don't; clearly that isn't a problem for us being friends, but it's definitely a problem for us being long-term mates!

So, my uninformed opinion is that in choosing a mate, you should start by looking for the same qualities as you would look for in a friend. And you should look for most or all of them combined in one person, preferably. I love

rysmiel's formulation of the best and closest friends you're ever going to get. Then you should look for some more qualities on top of that, such as sexual compatibility, congruent life goals, being available for a relationship. It's possible that if you're that fussy you'll end up single, but then

rysmiel's example among others suggests that it's possible to be fussy and still succeed in finding good relationships.

I write this as I am about to leave in order to rush around madly all day before heading to the airport and thence hopefully to England this evening. I will see you at Bat's party, yes?

From:

I love rysmiel's formulation of "the best and closest friends you're ever going to get." Then you should look for some more qualities on top of that, such as sexual compatibility, congruent life goals, being available for a relationship. It's possible that if you're that fussy you'll end up single, but then rysmiel's example among others suggests that it's possible to be fussy and still succeed in finding good relationships.

rysmiel is not restricted the ways I am, in terms of threshold population or geography (there was a time, IIRC, when

rysmiel's SOs were all on different continents).

rysmiel does not themself think I'm going to find anyone with the criteria I have; this is not particularly encouraging.

From:

there was a time, IIRC, when rysmiel's SOs were all on different continents

Not since 1996, though the majority of them have been in NorAm pretty much all the time since 1993.

rysmiel does not themself think I'm going to find anyone with the criteria I have; this is not particularly encouraging.

I think that criteria which were reasonably plausible for you some years ago are becoming and will continue to become less plausible with time, just because the sort of people I understand you to be seeking seem more and more likely to have acquired sufficient other commitments and general life stuff as they grow older to preclude their being practically free to get involved with you. This observation is not by any means limited to you in particular.

From:

But that's, unfortunately, *life*.

I find that whatever age I am, the people who are free to strike up relationships seem to be of completely unsuitable ages.

The question 'where was that twenty-year-old guy when I was twenty' is, unfortunately, 'in Kindergarten'...

From:

Yup, that's life. My problem with twenty-year-olds is that I expect people of that age to still be going through formative experiences: the person they are then isn't the person they will be a few years later. And my problem with people a few years older is that they're not going to be wanting to settle down yet, which I am.

From: