Three years ago I went to a 53rd reunion of a small town Jr High. 75% of them were within 30 or 40 miles and only 3 of us had left New England.

Wow. And they all had the same friendships and cliques?

Most of my friends are gone. So called work mates "friends" Who'd call looking for work, but never called when they found a job. You'd call and yes I've been working. SUCKS.

Some people can be happy autonomously. Having someone else to share it with is icing on the cake.

Some people need others just to have their cake.

Some people even need others to help them eat it too.

You can be a friend to others who won't be a friend to you. They can be a friend to yet others who won't be a friend to them. Their others may end up being a friend to you even though you won't reciprocate. You reap what you sow ... what goes around comes around. It's one of the things that differentiates first world relationship ethics from second world ethics. Organic intelligence and subsequent education notwithstanding.

To each their own; but, the sitcoms can stay. People aren't damaged by them, just reminded that they already are.

QFT

Interesting... What do you mean?

I've examined something in the past that might be applicable, the difference between the traditional almost family like provincial model and with the mentality that holds relationships as transient in nature. The contrast being that sort of urban disposability, "why solve it and grow when the world is full of people and you can just find something better", which results in expectations getting replaced with the choice to leave, under the mentality that you can't be entitled to anyone treating you any certain way but you always have the right to leave and so do they, and that is used as a pressure bed to try to draw out the desirable behaviors, or simply replacing pressure with selection, Like children moving in interest from toy to toy rather then establishing a relationship with the subject.... I've never quite thought of it as "1st world relationships", and I am not sure if that's what you mean by it, but it seems to fit.

The needier a person is, the more difficult it is for them to grasp: Entitlement is in the eye of the beholden. ...

Oh look, there's a Friends marathon on TV! Gotta go, bye.

What makes you think anyone's entitled to demand anyone else change their attitude/behavior to suit their opinion of what they should be?

Standard chic behavior;
I love you just the way you are.
I think you should wear this instead of that.
I think you should get your hair cut different.
I wish you wouldn't use that language.
I wish you liked different music.
I wish you wouldn't drive like that.
http://cellar.org/2015/willy_nilly.gif

Nobody is "Entitled", entitlement is within the frameworks of rights, "I have a right for [what you feel entitled for], and it's not a matter of a right to have people change for you, it's not a framework of rights to begin with. You don't "have to" do anything, but you can be legitimately judged positively or negatively for what you do or don't do, and more importantly - that judgement can actually be correct or incorrect, true or false* - meaning it can be true - and the judgement doesn't end where your rights begin, nor should it, in ethics rights don't define what is right for you to do, just what is wrong of others to prevent you from doing. I have the right for free speech, but that doesn't mean saying certain things won't make me an asshole. Likewise, your friends might not be entitled to you to treat them well, but treating them badly will still make you into a bad friend.

The provincial mentality assumes and fears the judgement will carry over, mostly because it usually does - through reputation and rumors, forcing you to grow and adapt to others but in the same time not for the most genuine reasons. The urban mentality goes around it by replacing the judger with whoever doesn't have the negative judgement (yet), giving you a 2nd chance and releasing you from social obligations. In both cases social perceptions are the unfortunate replacement to better judgement calls or any general desire to treat others well.

*Doesn't really work in "good" vs. "bad" other then a shorthand for "good/bad for [person]", since values are subjective but how you stand next to them isn't.

Who the fuck came up with Provincial and Urban, they are not accurate descriptions. That's nothing but social blackmail, anyway.
That's complete bullshit, definitely the language of blackmailers, schoolmarms, and con (wo)men of all ages.

Me? I was just naming them to not assume they are directly equivalent to what sexobon meant by 1st world vs 2nd world when asking her.

Hmm... You know I am a guy right? Blackmailer? Ok... But schoolmarm and conwoman? Anyway..

Both dynamic utilize a form of coercion - in one people use themselves as "the prize" and rejection/cutting-off as "the punishment", in the other people use judgement gossip & reputation as reward & punishment, and both are means to pressure people into behaviors people want. Neither is particularly pure or with a moral high ground.

But yes - the one that forces people to adapt to people they'd otherwise rather not engage does generally lead people to challenge themselves and try to resolve conflicts or put it behind them when otherwise they'd just keep to themselves. You see that in anyone who's being in the military, it forces people to learn to look beyond their self centered bubbles (By virtue of being in larger bubbles that are still... bubbles).

Just noticed the post:
I see what you did there :D