I've always advocated ever-expanding one's circle of friends. I remember someone saying something like "one should make a new friendship every year." Ang strict ng requirement! My pink world of friendships "exploded" with the internet, primarily because of my blogging. So suddenly, I count many more people as 'friends', many of them raiders and fabcast listeners.
It came as a surprise to hear a friend of mine, from the non-online golden days mention that at as age advances, one should actually be pruning, not expanding, one's list of friends. At a certain point, you already know what kind of people you'd like to hang out with, what your interests are. And beyond that, you have already 'tested' your friendships through thick and thin, through sick and sin. You don't need new friends. You already have more than enough.
That got me thinking. Firstly, I wondered if this is really a matter of improving definitions and classifications: from acquaintances all the way to bff's. Have I simply been too loose with my definition of "friend"? Maybe I should reserve that title for those with whom I have really shared some of life's ups and downs.
I do have to admit that with some of my new-found friends, we have really yet to "try" the friendship through stormy weather. So maybe I should just re-classify them as "acquaintances"? Yet I know them a lot more than that.
My friend, of course, is also coming from the perspective of having the time and effort to nurture friendships as relationships. Do I really have the time to invest in developing all these friendships? Or would I be stretching myself too thin?
As I tried to argue that some of this new people I meet are very interesting, interesting enough to make me want to spend more time with them. And he shot that one by questioning my motivation. Am I really, truly interested in the person in pursuit of a friendship, or am I really flirting? Gulp.
Anyway, I ask you, dear raiders, what is your take on this?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad