I was asking for more along the lines of any studies or papers. Do you have anything that counters the studies that have been conducted and which seem to give pretty much the same result?
Take another look at Ward's article:
"the possibility remains that this apparently platonic coexistence is merely a façade, an elaborate dance covering up countless sexual impulses bubbling just beneath the surface. New research suggests that there may be some truth to this possibility—that we may think we’re capable of being “just friends” with members of the opposite sex"
Oh wait. We've gone from "maybe we're just pretending" to "possibly we're wrong when we think it's platonic".
He is not saying that this is always the case either. The findings from studies conducted shows what appears to be a higher proportion of males who are more attracted to their female "friends" than the other way around, in that the women see the friendship as being more platonic than the men who participated in the study did. The results from those studies certainly seem to be pointing that way. What of it? What do you make of the results of those studies themselves?
And this "Men were much more attracted to their female friends than vice versa. Men were also more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them—a clearly misguided belief" - I'm not (sexually) attracted to the overwhelming majority of the women I class as friends (and that includes the night out on the town section) and I don't think I've ever assumed they were sexually attracted to me.
And do you find any of them sexually attractive? Have you ever thought that you could be interested in them sexually?
Some men clearly felt that the women who were their friends were sexually attractive and apparently believe that those women may have felt the same towards them. Not every one is the same, not did every male in that study respond in that way, but a higher majority of men did as opposed to women who view their male friends as being more platonic.
I can tell you this, however, that as a woman, that is not a comforting thing. In fact, it's bloody terrifying for a variety of reasons.
He is not saying that this is always the case either. The findings from studies conducted shows what appears to be a higher proportion of males who are more attracted to their female "friends" than the other way around, in that the women see the friendship as being more platonic than the men who participated in the study did. The results from those studies certainly seem to be pointing that way. What of it? What do you make of the results of those studies themselves?
Um, didn't I say "I'm not (sexually) attracted to the overwhelming majority of the women I class as friends (and that includes the night out on the town section)"?
Not every one is the same, not did every male in that study respond in that way, but a higher majority of men did as opposed to women who view their male friends as being more platonic.
Oh, maybe this is why I wrote:
"And so is Adrian Ward if he actually said what the OP claims he did." (Note there's an "if" in there").
"So, basically, neither he nor Secular Sanity are capable of understanding what was written in the study."
I.e. I'm not disputing the study per se, so much as the OP's interpretation of it: "Men and women cannot be friends. Ba da bing - ba da boom!".
I can tell you this, however, that as a woman, that is not a comforting thing. In fact, it's bloody terrifying for a variety of reasons.
Although the current investigation has provided evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis that there is an evolved opposite-sex friendship psychology, it is possible that the effects discussed in this article are due instead to men’s and women’s evolved mating strategies’ impinging on their experiences of opposite-sex friendship. Men’s perception of sex as an important reason for forming an opposite-sex friendship, for example, may be a byproduct of their evolved desire for sexual variety. Men may desire sex with their opposite-sex friends because the friendship serves as an additional context in which their desire for sexual variety can be manifested.
Our findings suggest that opposite-sex friendship is a strategy men use to gain sex, women use to gain protection, and both sexes use to acquire potential romantic partners.
From the OP "Adrian Ward said that platonic coexistence is merely a facade.", "They’ll only be friends with us, if they’re attracted to us",
Um, didn't I say "I'm not (sexually) attracted to the overwhelming majority of the women I class as friends (and that includes the night out on the town section)"?
Oh, maybe this is why I wrote:
"And so is Adrian Ward if he actually said what the OP claims he did." (Note there's an "if" in there").
"So, basically, neither he nor Secular Sanity are capable of understanding what was written in the study."
I.e. I'm not disputing the study per se, so much as the OP's interpretation of it: "Men and women cannot be friends. Ba da bing - ba da boom!".
Why do you think it is that married people have fewer opposite-sex friends than single people? How close are you to your female friends? Is there any difference in the quality or quantity of time that you spend with your female friends vs. your male friends?
Dywyddyr said:
I'm not disputing the study per se, so much as the OP's interpretation of it: "Men and women cannot be friends.
I've mentioned personality/neurological thingies. Cultural thingies (a main one that probably got WAY overlooked is money!) No one should have to mention other physical differences.
But more to the cultural side - and I think this thread is more annoying than much else so meh - I wondered how birth control fit in.
Probably because they tend to have children, and children take away from time one can spend with friends.
How close are you to your female friends? Is there any difference in the quality or quantity of time that you spend with your female friends vs. your male friends?
Depends on the friend. For me, the differences between people's personalities is a bigger factor than their sex in terms of how much time I spend with them.
Here's a variable: How does any individual define friendship?
Also, just because the question occurred to me and I can't even define it properly: If I refuse to have sexual contact with a female friend―and let us please set aside for the moment the question of being gay―because "I don't want to risk damaging our friendship", to what degree am I blaming myself, and to what degree am I projecting her thoughts and behavior?
I can actually conceive (ha!) of a discussion in which I could corner myself by projecting some manner of fragility upon her, either physical, erotic, or generally psychological or even psychiatric. And why not, since it would essentially be an ego defense projection.
There's a joke I used to make, about my last female partner, that I could take larger, harder, and for a longer time than she could. And it's ... true. But I can't for the life of me remember why I thought it was funny. After all, it's simply a bunch of bullshit about what she owes me in bed, and, you know, when I let a guy on top of me I will give what I give, but I have exactly zero right to expect that of anybody who lets me in.
And anyone can think what they want of it; for some it would seem an anomalous contrast. But it's also a result of conditions that frame the question that way; indeed, 'tis the best I've come up with in the forty-two years of my life to organize and answer the myriad questions hemorrhaging from the hideous misogyny of my cultural upbringing↱. But that cultural misogyny is also the reason why the idea of mere friendship 'twixt men and women seems so perplexing to so many people.
The question of how sexual intimacy changes basic friendship is subject to the cultural conditions in which it arises.
I really thought we were friends. I was naive. When I found out, I realized that they didn’t value my friendship, while overvaluing their contribution. I did a cost-benefit analysis. There were no benefits, only costs. I ended the relationships. Told 'em to go jump in Lake Wobegon.
I think you can share mutual cross-sex friends with your spouse, but all the other ones "most likely", "seem to" have hidden agendas.
Personally speaking, it is like a betrayal.. You start to question their motives. You start to doubt yourself and what you may have shared with them about yourself and you start to question if they used any of that for their benefit. Say you had marital problems or an argument or issue with your spouse or partner, and you talk about it with your friends, to try to get some advice, for example, or just to talk about it, and you start to question whether any advice they gave you was for your benefit or theirs.
Among my cohort the presupposition of mating potential seems, at least to memory, almost inescapable. It really was―and probably largely remains―programmed into us by virtue of sheer volume and repetition. It's one thing, for instance, to pitch as many of us do against street harassment, or even try to figure out the question of environments in which physical molestation is part of the social ritual―such as we might see in some nightclubs―but it seems absurd to have to make such considerations of guard and defense within the context of friendship.
Honestly, there came a point in the last several years at which something in my conscience shifted and as near as I can tell I finally achieved some visceral hold on the otherwise easy intellectual question of women's rights versus human rights.
It's why the De Beauvoir quote is so important.
Doonesbury, by G. B. Trudeau; 17 October 1972
The thing is that society keeps looking at women as something separate from the rest of humanity. Human rights are human rights. Women's rights, it seems, are something to be parceled out as rewards for obedience. I had occasion to blog↱ a political version, with the punch line about all the buzz and murmur surrounding the upcoming Planned Parenthood subcommittee investigation coming from one Douglas Johnson, who recalled Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC04) leading the moderate revolt in January that tabled an anti-abortion bill: "To now reward her with a seat on the special panel", the gentleman from National Right to Life Committee explained, "would be inappropriate, to put it mildly".
And that's kind of an apt metaphor for how we seem to regard women in American society.
And on a personal level, that seems reflected in many relationships between the sexes; women are defined first not as human, but as something else according to someone else's needs. This condition does not allow for equality in a human relationship.
There's a strange cost-benefit analog to friends with benefits, too; women undertake the greatest risk, and at least as we hear from the buzz in the culture, enjoy the least benefit.
Here's a way I don't like to look at it, though it still seems apt. It is historically true that I can find arousal and orgasm with women, but it is also true that the basic act ... well, you know, maybe it had something to do with my selection criteria, and that last relationship was by every measure but one a disaster. But, no, the basic act just doesn't thrill me. There needs to be something more about it. And, you know, in the end that last relationship really was a fucking disaster, such that the tension really did become objectifying, like that dysfuncitonal joke that comes down to what she somehow owes me in bed. At some point, we enter a realm where the iteration really could be, "I prefer the women in my life as people in my life, not sex toys in my bed."
And, you know, now that I'm capable of perceiving it that way, I can never risk going back. The farther I drag myself from the misogynistic insanity of my culture, the more insane it seems.
Very few men on the planet will ever have cause to look at the issues the way I have. What ever happened to Fay Wray? I'm probably alive because I'm a coward. And perhaps that's part of what happened; maybe it's only as I face up to the question in real terms with real potential? Really? That is supposed to be me? Okay, but what does that really mean? And at that point, the intellectual and abstract starts to set a visceral hook.
I can't tell anyone else how to reach that intersection; not every man is a queer buffoon who somehow manages to avoid getting himself killed.
But no, while I can sing hosannas to the difference between abstract and visceral comprehension, it is presently beyond me to explain to anybody else any manner of a path to enlightenment.
And while we might try to figure out that pathway, here's an additional challenge. I can make myself sound hideous, to be certain, but it's also true that I can say I "did okay". But what happens when I can no longer accept the standard resulting in that assessment? That nobody would charge me with a crime and none would assert that I specifically did traumatic damage is only comforting to a certain useless degree, because, come on, nobody really needs the kind of bullshit expectation it took over three quarters of my life to figure out was bullshit. The whole thing is a disaster. We might certainly expect massive ego defense as any given man works his way back to "human rights" instead of "women's rights"; history is pretty consistent on this count. But until prevailing societal attitudes affirm and, more importantly, comprehend the difference, my American culture really does present serious challenges to basic platonic friendships between men and women.
If we attend the general statement that it is impossible, I would contend such an outcome circumstantial. Unfortunately, societies rarely evolve that fast. I have no idea what it will take. But the first thing is that women need to be viewed according to other criteria than those leading to sexual attraction.
Maybe this thread is about culture and politics, and in which case I am stupid. But if it's about the human brain and personality, saying something like 'Men and women can't be friends' is horrendously inept.
Make better friends.
(Maybe I should read that guide on how to spot a psychopath, but I think I've done alright myself...)
I personally believe it's very natural for a man to size up a woman as a potential mate, but I also think it's just a passing interest in most situations. If it were an attractive man, wouldn't a woman do the same?
That's not true. Take me for instance, I’m well read. I can build a house from the ground up. I can fix any appliance in my home. I’m an outdoorswoman. I have a lot in common with most men.
I flat-out asked all my male friends, why they were friends with me.
History buff, intelligent, my neighbor, who I thought was a friend, says how could I not be attracted to you?
Psychiatrist, similar interests, who I also thought was a friend. Invites me to a book club to discuss "The Red Book" by Carl Jung. Afterwards, he says that he really enjoys my company and wanted to know if "this" could continue. I had to ask what "this" meant.
All of my male friends from high school, same thing.
Well, your talents might make you more desirable, and not simply in a sexual way. Much of what my wife and I shared were common interests, on which we built our relationship. I wish she could use a hammer and a screwdriver, but the other stuff she does makes up for those she doesn't. But I understand your point, you are wanting a platonic relationship with the opposite gender, which, apparently, has proven impossible. Could it be that you ooze a certain appeal without realizing it?
So I talked to a number of my male friends (including an ex) about this topic, and there appeared to be a common thread that emerged:
- They felt that women tend to be possess a number of traits that make them (on average) inferior to men when it comes to friendship. In particular they find that women are more argumentative, more self-obsessed and needy, and more likely to be party poopers. They made an interesting observation that men are friends with each other because they enjoy each others company, while women tend to be friends with men because of the utility of said men.
- They have had friendships with women in the absence of sexual attraction, but those women were generally ugly.
- A couple of the men I talked to didn't see why sexual attraction and friendship were mutually exclusive. My ex pointed out that one can hardly help being sexually attracted to someone, and that you can still value the person for traits outside of their sexual appeal.
- My ex also mentioned that women appear to have far higher standards than men when it comes to what turns them on. He speculated that the average man find 70-80% of the female population sexually attractive, whereas the average woman finds 5-10% of the male population sexually attractive. I didn't agree with his figures, but acknowledged that men seem to get turned on far easier than women. He concluded that because of this, it's more likely that men are going to be sexually attracted to women whom they form friendships with.
- One of my friends disagreed that it was wrong to form a friendship with someone you want to get into a romantic relationship with. He asked me if men should just approach female strangers they find attractive and ask them for sex straight out. When I remarked that lots of women wouldn't find that appropriate, he then asked how men were meant to court women if it was offensive to form friendships with women with the intent to have that friendship progress to something more. His attitude was 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe men shouldn't approach women at all.'
You mean the lady who seduced a number of her underage students, some of whom later claimed to have suffered psychological damage from the sexual trysts? Feminists have the most unusual role models.
The real reason that men and women can’t be friends is because men don’t want to be friends with us. Even if we have more to offer as a friend, when push comes to shove, they’d select another male over a female every time. They say that they can’t be themselves around us, that we’re too much trouble, and that we need more comfort care.
Adrian Ward said that platonic coexistence is merely a facade. I’ve asked around and I think he’s right. They’ll only be friends with us, if they’re attracted to us. And yet, most men feel that it is unfair to use our sexuality to get ahead. Go figure.
How 'bout gay men? Can gay men and straight women be true friends? I doubt it. They’re just as biased towards us as straight men are.
[Gay male] Adrien Field: "We are not women, and we don’t advance ourselves by acting like them. Instead of being gossiping queens, we’d be better off adopting traditionally masculine traits such as stoicism, quiet contemplation, and responsibility."
You know, it’s not our gender that makes us so different. We are different. We’re different individuals. The ultimate male feminist would know this and could maintain an authentic friendship with a female.
Haha. You know, males can be true platonic friends if they are not attracted to you provided they also view women as equals and have things in common. Its also the type of male. There is the snake or wolf in sheep's clothing type that uses the ruse of friendship to get closer to have intimacy. That's not always disrespectful but it is when there real motivation has nothing to do with real friendship. You are an object and their disrespect is evident when they try to gloss over any sign that attraction is not mutual. Its predatory in a platonic guise. They could care less how you really feel.
Of course, there are also men who can be friends and be attracted physically, even romantically on some level and mutuality is important to them. The friends with benefits. Often, these are no different in feelings and actions from dating or boyfriend/girlfriend. It just has no serious formal commitment or label.
What makes a true friend is the lack of ulterior motives, being on the same page and respect for what each want or don't from each other.
Gay men actually do make very good friends for women because there is no ulterior sexual motives.
But unfortunately there are still a lot of men who have sexist views of women, some even unconsciously that make friendship impossible. Its uncomfortable and feels invasive for both male and female to be friends with another that is attracted and its not mutual. You're just going to feel grossed out on some level.
The men who see women as primarily sex objects or not based on their tastes are the ones to steer clear. They are unevolved. You can read them in conversation. You can tell they are not interested in your mind or opinions, what you care about, only pretending. You can tell just by vibes and body language, what they say, how overly exaggerated they are in their acting nice, offering to do things for you etc. Its like a used car salesman.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
