[Way OT & possibly NC-17 rated] Can men and women "just be friends"?

[Guilt Puppy]

Some guys have asked me the question (during those almost unbearable guy-only conversations), "if you could have an affair with the most beautiful woman you can imagine, and you knew there was absolutely no way you could get caught or suffer consequenses of any kind, would you go for it?" and seem utterly astonished when I answer, without hesitation, with a firm NO. Is my attitude really that unusual? Would their conscience not be bothered by a total betrayal of the trust of the one they love, even if she never found out?

I sometimes think the vast majority of other men think about nothing but sex, and when, where, and from whom they can next get it.

This brings up a point which I don't think has really been made in this thread (pardon if it has, I haven't read it thoroughly): The way societal gender roles fit into the whole "can men and women be friends" equation.

That you're asked that question in the first place shows that there's a certain level of conflict between the two... There's societal pressure to be faithful, from a moral perspective, but then the masculine image (in American as well as much of Western culture) holds that men should view women as sex objects, or at least appreciate women as sex objects. It's not that this is ever (or at least often) labelled a good thing in society, but it is labelled the normal thing -- and people will try very hard to adhere to gender roles in order to "fit in." (To what degree this is a conscious effect is sort of irrelevant...)

Having women as friends violates this same standard of normalcy: If you do not want sex from a woman, you are not normal. (The original poster calls this abnormality "married (and very committed), or gay")

First, he feels the need to qualify "married" with "and very commited"... This implies that fidelity is not the normal state of marriage for a man, or at least not the most normal state -- only a very commited man would refuse to cheat on his partner, but an averagely-commited man would go right for it. This is the same assumption about masculinity: Men normally want sex, and they normally want it more than anything else.

Second, of course, he options homosexuality... I'm sure he didn't mean this in any disparaging sense (really, I don't think he meant that post all too seriously to begin with -- I'm looking at it more as an object of discourse than as an argument to respond to or refute here). But all the same, this shows the same gender role at play: If a man does not want sex with a woman, it cannot be because he does want sex (because this is the standard for masculinity applied: male = wants sex) -- and if this is the case, by deduction his refusal must be based on the "with a woman" part... If a man is not sexually interested in women, then he must be interested in sex with something else, and the most normal "something else" would be men.

What is interesting about all this is that it ignores the possibility of abnormal men, men who do not fit the social definition of masculinity (or, for that matter, fidelity.) Because it's "not normal" for a man to not want sex with someone or anyone (of their preferred gender), it is assumed to be not possible.

This is of course the problem with gender roles: When you talk about men you talk about the social definition of masculinity -- that is part of what the word means. Men who do not fit this standard of normalcy are, by definition, not men -- of course, because this definition is tied in with concrete anatomy (aka stone golems) there is not an alternative identity. I have a wing-wang so I must be a man, and men want sex more than anything -- ergo, I want sex more than anything. Which, of course, causes the stereotypes to be true in one more case, reinforcing and perpetuating them...

Which isn't some problem we need to get up in arms about or anything, but it explains where what he's saying comes from and why what he's saying is also true. By the same token, I could say that all cats are blue, and if I insisted that any color on a cat be called blue I would be right.

I like cats. Mrowwwwr....

Double-Edit: In response to the "ladder theory" link: I read that a while ago, and I had some harsh words about it until I saw you mention you "agree with him completely..." Didn't want it to come across as directed toward you, so let's just say I disagree with him completely

And no, it had nothing to do with political correctness.

 

[Thresher]

I tend to take people on a case by case basis, it dosnt matter to me what their gender is, maybe Ive just been lucky Ive got a few people I can honestly call good friends that are women.
There are common points of intrest between us, things to talk about apart from just sex which dosnt come up in conversation very much anyway, they appreciate how a man thinks and Ive found a lot of insight into how women think.
When it comes down to basics there isnt a lot of difference in what women think rather than men do, I guess if I had to describe it simply, they just phase it differently

As for sleeping with them?
No!
It'd be like sleeping with friends of the same gender, which Im not inclined to do and while I hardly profess to be any type of politically correct or new age dude, Im not socially retarded enough to *not know* what happens between the sheets and I have learnt it does change the way people veiw a relationship dramatically.
In the case of a friendship it will take it to different level, possibly for the better, but it will change the way you veiw your friends and sometimes it makes the whole thing a lot more complicated.
I dont like complications, Im a simple bloke at heart

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I have some VERY attractive female friends, and while I enjoy hanging out with them, it would be silly for me to say I wouldn't gladly jump in the sack with them. Therefore, no, we aren't "just friends." IMHO, a man and a woman can be friends, but never "just" friends. One or the other inevitably wants to sleep with the other. He or she may not act on these feelings, but they exist, nonetheless.

 

[S'mon]

I have some VERY attractive female friends, and while I enjoy hanging out with them, it would be silly for me to say I wouldn't gladly jump in the sack with them. Therefore, no, we aren't "just friends." IMHO, a man and a woman can be friends, but never "just" friends. One or the other inevitably wants to sleep with the other. He or she may not act on these feelings, but they exist, nonetheless.

You think it's impossible to have a man/woman friendship where neither wants to sleep with the other?! :O

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yes I do. They may not admit it, even to themselves, and may never act on it, but it is there. One person ALWAYS has a degree of attraction above and beyond the other in any relationship.

 

[S'mon]

Yes I do. They may not admit it, even to themselves, and may never act on it, but it is there. One person ALWAYS has a degree of attraction above and beyond the other in any relationship.

How about if they both think the other is 'homely' or 'ugly'? Does that then prevent friendship, on your analysis?

*confused*

IMO some people are perfectly capable of cross-gender platonic friendship. Some aren't.

 

[Tsyr]

IMO some people are perfectly capable of cross-gender platonic friendship. Some aren't.

Yes, I think it's gonna boil down to this...

 

[John Crichton]

Sorry to snip so much, but I want to focus on the main part of the post.

Part of the problem is that there are several words in this thread--"love," "friend," "flirt," "gender"--that cannot be adequately defined by the board as a group, because each person must define them himself or herself. "Love," to me, is sacred, but also available freely to more than just those whom I "shag" (a word which can, I think, be adequately defined). I love my friends, and while some would say "like sisters and brothers," I would say, "No, like friends." I love my sister quite differently.

"Friend" is more difficult to define, even individually. Like many others, I have varying levels of friendship, from people who know my absolute deepest secrets to people who I'll say "hi" to on the street.

"Gender" is even more difficult for me to define, and this is where some might be offended--but keep in mind this is only my opinion/feeling. I do not divide humans into two genders; I divide them into three. There are the "typical males" and "typical females," who together make up 80-90% of the populace. And then there are the rest of us--and probably most gamers fall into this category. These are the people who do not manifest stereotypical qualities of either gender--or manifest qualities of both. The sensitive males, the women who are willing to not be annoyed at sports, the people of both gender who are less concerned with their appearances, hormones, and possessions and more concerned with their health, personal morality and, most important, minds--these people all fall into that last category.

I can relate to the Gender part of this, basically. I have many sets of friends in my life. Some are straight men, some are gay and the same goes for the females. However, that's where the generalization stops. My closest straight male friend is probably the most feminine out of the bunch. I'm speaking along the lines of communication and feelings, not appearances or how they act or are even really seen by most others. The person who I consider to have very dominant masculine communication traits is a straight woman.

For the record I am in my mid-20's. I have met many folks who go up and down the line of personalities (as I'm sure we all have). Some of my gays friends are openly gay so and it's easy to tell they are while others are not easy to tell at all. I think it has alot to do with how folks communicate with each other which is based on their individual personalities. This also directly ties in to romance and friendship.

Some folks speak in direct terms while others like to dance around a bit. Some people talk about their feelings while other keep them at arm's length or even further. Attraction is related to this because while looks can attract a person to another person, it is ultimately the personality that wins the day. Since we are talking about friendship here it is assumed we have moved past just outward appearances, altho they still factor in.

As for the question of can a non-married, single, non-blood related male be just friends with a female?

First off, I don't think it is mutaually exclusive to males. Because a female with very masculine communication traits can be just as male as someone who is a male. The chemical mix is a bit different and males are wired differently but the fact remains that it all depends on the individual. Males (or masculine communicating-oriented types) just happen to be the more dominant and therefore are often the pursuers.

To reword the concept: So, can a masculine-inclined person be friends with a feminine-inclined person and not have their be sexual tension or attraction? It is more likely that there will be attraction than not, in my experience. It all depends on age, life experiences and a ton of other factors. But all those aside, it does (as many others have mentioned) boil down to giving in to those feelings or not. I refer to it as being civilized or socially conditioned. It is why it is considered inappropriate to be attracted or act upon said attraction towards one's brother or sister. Most folks are conditioned to not follow up on such attractions if there are any, but they do happen. It is our personal willpower and standards that set these guidelines...

And on that note, I'll just say that I know my thoughts differ from most so I hope no one takes offense to anything I just typed.

 

[KDLadage]

For a great dissertation (of sorts) on this topic, go here:

http://www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html

Warning: Kind of a long read, but worth it.


FWIW, I agree completely with this guy. It may not be politically correct, but it is true.

No offense intented, but I think the author of that tripe is a morron.

 

[KDLadage]

You think it's impossible to have a man/woman friendship where neither wants to sleep with the other?! :O

That was my exact reaction to that statement...