LadyKate63 wrote:I don't think it's been eclipsed as much as the notion of your chosen partner (husband/wife, bf/gf, whichever applies) should always be at the top of your priority list. It's basically the same thing, just titled differently. I'm not saying that's how it is, but in many cases I have found that people tend to frown if someone choses their friend of 20 years over their (sexual) partner of 3 months. That's... curious, shall we say... But it is the society most of us live in. It's like you *have* to be with your mate (pardon my french) no matter what, even if you have other relationships that in reality run deeper.
Actually one reason the non-sexual interpretation is important to me because I think it's a strong affirmation of the idea that the strongest and most important relationship in your life can be a friendship (and doesn't have to be sexual), which is something that I think has been ... well, not lost but eclipsed in our culture.
I too have a very hard time imagining ever being in a relationship with someone who has someone else as their constant " # 1 ". But if there is one truth I know, it would be that 'everything is relative'. People are important to each other for different reasons and there needs to be clear lines defining what and who everyone is. At least to me.
X & G were in my mind constant best friends, but not necessarily constant lovers. That could be because of any number of reasons, but in my little world it explains a whole lot. The on and off-ness tends both to my inner subber as well as all those moments that scream "just friends". Why they were that way is beyond me, but it can be rooted in ancient times being what they were and how relationships often went back then.
But what do I know?
eta - wrote the wrong word, not just a typo
||:: 
I mean... that's what the ambiguity is about.
