DEAR SUSAN: I have experiences converting romantic love to friendship and also keeping relationships that are intimate but sexless. I can't even begin to explain how much those relationships have added to my life. A lover-turned- friend relationship proves that the love between the two of you is so deep that it doesn't end when the sexual side doesn't work out. Keeping those relationships in your life lessens the pain if a romance sours. And they teach you to be as accepting of your lover's flaws as your lover is of yours. Having opposite-sex friends gives you perspective on their gender's mindset and can be the standard by which to judge "the one." In my life, I've discovered that true friendship rises above gender and ethnicity. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: You are so right. Friendship is the gold standard of single life. Your voice of experience rings so true when it comes to keeping former lovers and adding new people to your constellation of friends. After all, the ones you keep close are your choice, not the inherited family you were born into. The gift of friendship is a precious thing, to be appreciated and nurtured in whatever form it takes; when two lovers are also best friends, it seems absurd to discard those bonds simply because the sexual side of the relationship ends. So it makes great good sense to spread your warmth over a wide social constellation, to include as many people of good will (any age, race, gender) as your life can hold. You may have once been lovers, but that cooled pretty quickly and settled into a solid friendship. Of course, it takes the two of you to agree on the new status, which means you must agree to migrate to another intensity level — certainly not for every past lover. And not everyone will agree to the new level of intimacy that ends the romantic angle but continues as close friendship. But when it works, it's dynamite — well worth the extra effort. Thanks for giving us a glimpse of your experiences with past lovers and the lessons you learned from them. We're all the better for it.

DEAR SUSAN: I wouldn't want to date anyone who has or had plural lovers simultaneously; the situation only invites turmoil. And I cannot fathom anyone in that situation being able to commit to one person. (I wish I could. The pool of prospects would be much greater!) I do agree that one doesn't need to be in love to find pleasure and enjoyment in sex, but you should only be with one person at a time. There is value in sex, and when that is lost, the couple has no bond. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: Aye, there's the rub — that pesky bonding phenomenon that keeps on surfacing and demanding recognition! You and I, reader (and most of the world), value the emotional connection forged between lovers too highly to consign it to the trash heap of plural lovers and temporary commitment. For us, sexual joining connects us with something higher than flesh or pleasurable pangs; it has the potential to be spiritual communion, a depth of feeling that can be achieved rarely, possibly once (or twice) in a lifetime. You and I can't place ourselves in a situation of casual sex, entered into by two people without emotional connection or hope of one. As an ally and friend of the unmarried, I have a pretty good idea of the consequences of so-called casual sexual encounters. The carnage wrought by that cheap stuff is long-lasting and horrific. Your instincts serve you well.

Have a question for Susan? Send it to her in care of this newspaper or online at www.creators.com.