Unrequited Love

This post is is reply to a comment made on Can a man and woman be just friends?

Here's the comment/question:

"That brings up another question... can romantic feelings be felt by only one individual involved in a "platonic friendship"? And if so, why is that the case (is the other simply not putting as much heart into the relationship, or perhaps there are situations when two friends of the opposite sex can be close without feeling the need to take the friendship to the next level)? Also, if only one friend has the more romantic feelings, then what?"

First question: Can romantic feelings be felt by only one individual involved in a "platonic friendship"?

Yes.

However, this cannot be used to argue that there is a possibility of both people in the relationship not having romantic feelings because if such were the case, the relationship would quickly fall apart. The lover is the initiator in the relationship which leaves the one who is least committed to hold the power.

In an attempt to be a little less narrow-minded and biased on this topic, I went to the experts for help.

Here's what Wikipedia (definitely an expert ;)) has to say on the matter of unrequited love:

"A universal feeling, by some estimates affecting 98% of all people during their lifetimes, unrequited love has naturally been a frequent subject in popular culture. Unfortunately, movies, books and songs often portray the would-be lover's persistence as paying off when the rejector comes to his or her senses. The presence of this script makes it easy to understand why an unrequited lover persists in the face of rejection'."

Using my own personal examples, as I usually do, I can tell you that I've seen both sides to unrequited love.

I've been the person head over heels in love with someone, joyfully skipping down the street only to trip over a semi-truck that I had skillfully blinded myself from.

But I've also been the one to block the skipper. Without personally feeling that lack of interest myself, I would have a much more difficult time convincing myself of its existence.

Second question: Why are there platonic friendships in which only one member of the party is interested in something more?

Since transitioning from an intimate friendship to a romantic relationship is natural, there has to be something preventing that transition.

Or... if you want to use the line at the top of the post, "Love is friendship set on fire" so someone has either doused themselves in flame retardant or is in control of a water hose.

There have been several explanations given as to why this situation exists. One of the most popular explanations is fear. This is highlighted throughout the movie He's Just Not That Into You as different inserted clips throughout the film use flimsy excuses like "he's intimidated by you" or "he just got out of a relationship and is afraid to commit" or "he's afraid to ruin the friendship." 

So yes, fear is an option to answer why. Do I think it's usually the right answer? No.. I think fear may often be a factor initially in a relationship but if you're to the point of an intimate friendship that this post is referring to, such nonsense should already be eliminated. Sorry if I just offended anyone.

Another option is a low interest level. Maybe the person you wish would love you just isn't that interested in you. Maybe they just don't really care about you. That's a load of pish posh. That person is one of your best friends and probably knows you better than almost anyone else in your life. And do you know why they know all those things? Because they care. There's a reason that the two of you are such good friends. It's because they like you and like spending time with you. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in your life anymore. And here's another thing... in most one-sided love relationships all the "woe is me" is put on the one who loves but is not loved back. Such should not always be the case. Again, Wikipedia helped me out on this one:

"'There are two dark sides to unrequited love, but only one is made familiar by our culture' - that of the lover, not the rejector. In fact research suggests that the object of unrequited affection experiences a variety of negative emotions on a par with those of the suitor, including anxiety, frustration and guilt. As Freud long since pointed out, 'when a woman sues for love, to reject and refuse is a distressing part for a man to play', and vice versa. The role of the rejector will often force them to 'feel morally repugnant and guilty'; and whereas the unrequited lover may always retain some hope, 'the rejector's potential outcomes are nearly all bad'."

So no, interest is not usually the key explanation as to why. Often it is that they want to love you but simply don't.

Scratch that. "Simply don't" is not the answer as to why that I want to go with. I do not believe that someone already involved in that intimate of a friendship can simply not love you back without a reason.

I think the answer to why this relationship exists lies a lot closer to what the non-lover is looking for in a romantic relationship.

Using the times in my life that I've been that non-lover I can tell you that it was not that I feared the relationship.. it was not that I did not genuinely care for the person-- in fact, I loved being with them. It was that I wanted to find someone who filled the quota for another relationship I had in mind. I have often gone about my relationships with the mind set that even though I care about this new person and love spending time with them and can see great potential in a romantic relationship, I block them out because they are not who I want them to be. I want them to be someone else I have already fallen in love with but of course they can never be that person. By doing this, I am not allowing this natural process from intimate friends transition into a romantic relationship even though such a transition should occur and has great potential.

It's not that I can't love them.. it's that I am harboring a mindset in which whether consciously or subconsciously, I have make the decision to not love them.

That's why you can't give a real reason for not matching a love interest-- because there isn't one.

The only reason you can give is that you chose to fight that transition so any other excuses are flaky at best.

Third question: If only one friend has romantic feelings, then what?

One thing is for sure-- you can't keep living on the hope that one will change their mind. It will destroy you.

Wikipedia: "In terms of the feelings of the hopeful one, it could be said that they undergo about the same amount of pain as does someone who is going through the breakup of a romantic relationship without ever having had the benefit of being in that relationship."

What then, do you do? This is your best, most close, intimate friend and you can't bear the thought of losing them. The thought of decreasing that level of intimacy in the friendship is more heartbreaking than the thought of living on the prayer that they'll change their mind..

So.. you learn to love them unconditionally. It's not an easy process. It takes time and work to learn to spend time with a friend you love but keep that love at a minimum. It takes control to watch them have feelings for someone else and not let your heart shatter every time they do. You have to learn to be friends, and just friends.

If you can't find happiness and satisfaction in being just platonic friends with someone while allowing your love life to move on beyond them, I would say you need to let them go. 

But if you can learn to love unconditionally and function normally once again as friends then I think you have something you should hold on to.