Abstract

The author is concerned to explain whether perception of maintenance behavior in opposite sex relationship vary as a function of romantic intent, uncertainty and biological sex. He further explains how it may be difficult to maintain cross-sex friendship than same sex friendships. He mentions the attributes which might be required to maintain cross-sexual relationships which include affection companionship, assistance and intimacy.

Introduction

To analyze further on cross-sexual relationship he examined the four types of cross-sex friendship: – Friendship involving mutual romance, friendships which are strictly platonic, friendship which have desire of romance, and those which rejects romance. He concludes that it is due to the ambiguity about romantic intent in cross-sex friendship that makes the parties to experience relational uncertainty which in turn inhibit their use of maintenance behavior. He further agues that cross-sex friends can use their maintenance behavior to maintain status quo and also to accomplish varied goals across different phases of a relationship. Relational maintenance is defined as keeping relationship in existence, keeping relationship in a specified state or stable condition, keeping a relationship satisfying and keeping a relationship in repair. He continues to explain that if a partner feels that the other partner want to change the relationship to romance they should feel free to, he however cautions that one should do the change in good manner.

Body

The author explains to the reader that friendship is an important relationship. According to him, one ought to have a friend as friendship is a source of happiness in a person’s life “Friendships are significant sources of happiness in people’s lives………” (Dr. Laura Guerrero & Alana Chavez, 1999) it is evidenced that in the entire writing he doesn’t show the reader how significant a friendship can be, he only concentrates on explaining how friendships are difficult and fragile relationship to be in. He contradicts his statement throughout the entire writing. In my opinion he should have targeted to tell the reader both sides of a relationship by supporting his argument that friendship is a good institution to be in and again showing how it may turn out to be difficult if the parties don’t understand and try to guard their relationship. He has however succeeded in showing how difficult and fragile relationships are and how one can try to maintain the relationship satisfying.

The author made an assumption in the paper that maintenance is a dynamic process which may not always be the case. In most cases this will depend on the individual involved and how they perceive the actions of one another. He says “A central assumption guiding this paper is that maintenance is a dynamic process that involves adapting to the changing needs and goals that characterize a relationship” (Dr. Laura Guerrero & Alana Chavez, 1999). The writer ought to have showed the reader how they should make the changes in the best possible manner as they try to maintain the relationship; they also need to learn to synchronize with their partners. He however show how one can take the advantage of maintenance being a dynamic process to boost the status quo and also to achieve the various goals of a relationship.

The author advices the reader in his paper that he should try to avoid too much relational maintenance, to avoid their friends from misinterpreting them. He supports this claim by saying that, people who reported to have used avoidance in response to a hypothetical situation in which their partners wanted the relationship to become more intimate, they turned out to be misunderstood. He however doesn’t show the reader how he acquired that knowledge or how he did that research but just shows the reader the support with proving its truth. The reader is left in state where he cannot trust the writer of the paper about this information and thus the author cast a doubt in this argument.

The author reports to have done the survey with the undergraduate students. Its evidenced that the author was targeting the people who are in permanent relationship, he however goes ahead to survey the issue in student. It has been noted that very few were in permanent relationship while the other were either in no relationship or relationships which were not permanent. The targeted reader wont be satisfied that the claims of the author would work due wrong choice of the people he used to survey. In my opinion the author ought to have contacted the survey in both the people who have already established their relationship and perhaps backup the survey with the others who were already in process of making their relation permanent. In this case he ought to have targeted the married people and the already engaged people and know from them how they have been able to make their relationship work.