We've probably all heard someone say something along the lines of, "I've known him/her for so many years, so he/she comes before everyone else." We've all had that one friend who's been dating her boyfriend longer than you've been with yours, and she thinks that makes her relationship stronger. But why? Why should time dictate the strength and depth of any type of relationship? Why should milestones and "prerequisites" be marked by time?
Now, I'm not saying that relationships happen instantly or that having a long-lasting relationship is a bad thing or shouldn't happen. I'm just saying that the length of time that two people have known each other or been together doesn't dictate the strength of said relationship.For instance, I dated my previous boyfriend for almost two years. By the end of it, I was extremely unhappy and pretty much ready for it to end. It had taken so long to connect to him, and even then, we didn't have a very strong connection. Fast forward a few years to June 2016. I met someone to whom I instantly connected. Even friends of mine who saw how we interacted knew we would be perfect together. I've known him for less than six months, and I can't imagine life without him. I've never connected to anyone the way I connect to him, and, unlike my previous relationships, nothing about my relationship with him feels forced.
Society seems to police friendships and relationships in an attempt to validate them based on their duration. There's absolutely no reason why time should be used to prove how strong a bond or connection is or dictate how "ready" a couple is to take a relationship to the next level. As far as friendships go, why is the person who's been around longer automatically seen as the better, more important friend? Time doesn't measure loyalty or quality.