I find the idea of having a “best” friend infinitely intriguing. Seriously, what other species recognizes that others are unique and then places another level of distinction on one, and 
one alone? I can understand having layers of friends. I’ve seen it a lot. I mean, sometimes you need a friend to hang with at the club, and the preacher isn’t it, but she’s cool to go fishing with instead. It’s like a friend for every occasion. But a best friend?
I like to think that the idea for friends originated with the caveman who needed someone to go ice fishing with, or to club seals over the head with. The only prerequisite was to have a club and to be able to grunt (so I don’t club you in the head, thinking you’re a seal). These types of friends I call the specific friends. They are specifically for one activity, but you never talk to them outside of that activity. Not best friend material.
“The only prerequisite was to have a club and to be able to grunt.”
Friendship evolved to include people who lived near you just because of their proximity. You didn’t have to share activity interests. You only had to be around the same age, and you could create things to do together. These types of friendships were tied to the neighborhood, though. When one friend moved away the friendship would soon die. It is what I call the proximity friendship. Also not best friend material.
More recently, there has been a shift in friendships, all because of the internet. Because we can keep in touch easier and can expand our friend bases outside of physical 
proximity, we now have the distance friend. You can be friends with people in Japan, and actually go there to visit them. Or you can interact any number of other ways, like with texting, skyping, etc. While this doesn’t quite compare with the proximity friend, it does offer an outlet to continue that friendship if one of you moves. Still not best friend material.
And lest I forget, there are now friends with benefits, a hybrid of friend that introduces a completely different level of physical intimacy that was never previously included in the friend debate. While this takes care of the proximity issue, it adds the danger of losing the friend if one of you decides to end the physical part of things. These are most definitely not best friends, unless you decide at some point to marry the friend with benefits, which inevitably ends the label of friends with benefits. Girls tend to seek more from the friends with benefits than guys do. It’s biological.
“A best friend shares your hopes, dreams, and fears.”
So then, that brings us to the criteria for best friend. There needs to be that shared interest factor, even if it’s just one activity. More often than not you need to be in close proximity too, but connections via phone, iPad, computer are all helpful as well. But a best friend you share your hopes, dreams, and fears with. You laugh together, you cry together, and you may even share clothes, ladies. The best thing about a best friend is that the activity doesn’t matter. You could be sitting there in silence and it is still comfortable. A best friend knows when you need, what you need, and how you need it.
The secret I forgot to share with you earlier is that in this friend hierarchy, as in the class system, not everyone has a best friend. There are way more peasants than landowners, and we all want land, but we don’t all get land. It’s a sad reality, but best friends, true best friends are rare. So if you happen to get one, hang on to her. You won’t see her likes again.
Sam
Sam's Online Journal 