PDA

View Full Version : I thought we were just friends.



megrfl
2012-Oct-25, 01:33 PM
I did and so did a bunch of other women, probably binders full of women, but it turns out I was wrong...


Just Friends or maybe not. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/platonic-friends-men-women_n_2005709.html)

jokergirl
2012-Oct-25, 01:56 PM
Is that an attempt to restart a moderator closed discussion?

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 02:58 PM
From the linked article...


New research suggests that there may be some truth to this possibility—


Did I miss a link to the research? I see where the claim is made that the research happened, but no link to the actual research.


...am I just supposed to take the "word" of the Huffington Post?

Swift
2012-Oct-25, 03:00 PM
Is that an attempt to restart a moderator closed discussion?
Let me quote what I posted in that closed thread (just a few hours ago):

This thread will remain closed. As much as anything, the problem was rude behavior, by several of the participants. The mods feel it is now too "broke" to salvage.

The topic is a little borderline for a family-friendly forum, but if participants could deal with it maturely and with appropriate language, it is not completely out of bounds.
So, as long as people remain polite and non-confrontational, and as long as the discussion in this thread remains within the context of a family-friendly forum, this topic can continue. However, we will be keeping a close eye on this thread and will infract those who cannot remain within the rules.

I will also remind members that if you suspect a thread or post is inappropriate, that you should Report the post (as another member did for this thread), rather than confront the OP themselves in-thread.

NEOWatcher
2012-Oct-25, 03:00 PM
Is that an attempt to restart a moderator closed discussion?
I wonder about the same thing.

And; I disagree with the options, especially since there is no clear question.

This is not a black and white issue, and it paints too broad of a brush.
Platonic is a line, level of romance is degree which can lie on either side of the line or cross the line.

And a study of undergraduates? That's probably the worst age group to study and project to the population when it comes to anything sexual.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 03:16 PM
So, as long as people remain polite and non-confrontational...

Could you elaborate as to what you mean by non-confrontational?


To me, it seems that any disagreement with the OP would be confrontational.

Swift
2012-Oct-25, 03:32 PM
Could you elaborate as to what you mean by non-confrontational?


To me, it seems that any disagreement with the OP would be confrontational.
No. I can't give you some neat pocket definition on what would pass and what won't. Its the same problem that has been described for years in multiple Feedback threads - it is impossible to describe all possible ways to break our rules.

But frankly, I don't think this is so hard to understand.

If you're not sure, then don't post it.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-25, 03:34 PM
And; I disagree with the options, especially since there is no clear question.

Right. Have I never had a male friend who wanted to be more? No. Have all my male friends wanted to be more? No. Have I never had a male friend where I wanted more? No. Have I wanted more of all my friends? No. Happily for me, Graham and I both wanted more, but I've also lost a friend or two over the years from complications of that sort. On the other hand, I've had male friends for many years without either of us suggesting it should be anything but a friendship.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 03:38 PM
If you're not sure, then don't post it.

Good, reasonable advice....thanks.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 03:44 PM
Right. Have I never had a male friend who wanted to be more? No. Have all my male friends wanted to be more? No. Have I never had a male friend where I wanted more? No. Have I wanted more of all my friends? No. Happily for me, Graham and I both wanted more, but I've also lost a friend or two over the years from complications of that sort. On the other hand, I've had male friends for many years without either of us suggesting it should be anything but a friendship.

As your "examples" demonstrate, every situation is going to be different. There is no "right" answer to this question.


Which is why I (and others) are so adament about not "painting" an entire "group" (such as all Men) with such a "wide brush".

jokergirl
2012-Oct-25, 04:16 PM
Right. Have I never had a male friend who wanted to be more? No. Have all my male friends wanted to be more? No. Have I never had a male friend where I wanted more? No. Have I wanted more of all my friends? No. Happily for me, Graham and I both wanted more, but I've also lost a friend or two over the years from complications of that sort. On the other hand, I've had male friends for many years without either of us suggesting it should be anything but a friendship.

What she said, basically, minus the part about Graham, who I don't know. :)

NEOWatcher
2012-Oct-25, 04:41 PM
I know in my case, the situation is based on the understanding of each other.

I have pursued friends of the opposite sex for more than platonic freindship, and remain platonic friends to this day and have no problem with it. It was made clear early enough on that it wouldn't go beyond that. So; no matter what the intention, case closed... It ain't gonna happen. (in fact, one even ended up to eventually be my stepsister)

It's the ones that go further than platonic and then say "lets just be friends" that I have a problem with. At that point is a reversal of a situation that was already made. But then again, I could never grasp the concept of "friends with benefits".

blueshift
2012-Oct-25, 04:50 PM
There are a lot of grey areas with this topic. How one defines what a "friend" is and what it means to have something in common can have a lot to do with loss of communication. I had one person tell me she wanted to just be friends. So I responded, "So I take it you want to come over and work on my motorcycle with me? Or, do you want to play baseball in a hard ball league? Would you like to help overhaul my CG5GT mount? Or, can I ask you advice on how to operate my plunge router with a little more efficiency? Should I make just one pass with the router or a few small depth cuts with it? Do you have a background in differential geometry? Would you like to go to a lecture discussing the Higgs Boson at Fermilab?"

She gave a blank stare. So we agreed to "being acquainted with one another, saying hi or good bye or how's the weather but nothing more. Friendship as I defined it she did not want. Neither did I.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-25, 04:53 PM
What she said, basically, minus the part about Graham, who I don't know. :)

And even if you did, I wouldn't be so happy if both of you wanted more than just friendship!


But then again, I could never grasp the concept of "friends with benefits".

I know people who have made it work. I also know people for whom it was a complete disaster. It turns out human relationships are complicated. Who knew?

ETA--
Friendship as I defined it she did not want. Neither did I.

None of what you've described sounds like what I do with my friends. Because different people, etc.

NEOWatcher
2012-Oct-25, 04:57 PM
It turns out human relationships are complicated. Who knew?
I've known people that did know and claim to have unraveled it. Or so they thought.

jokergirl
2012-Oct-25, 05:05 PM
And even if you did, I wouldn't be so happy if both of you wanted more than just friendship!

Neither would my boyfriend. :lol:

Swift
2012-Oct-25, 05:34 PM
I have pursued friends of the opposite sex for more than platonic freindship, and remain platonic friends to this day and have no problem with it.
Me too. I even have one friend who started as a platonic relationship, became a romantic relationship, and then went back to being a platonic relationship (yes, there was some hurt feeling for the last transition, but that was 30 years ago, and we got over all that in the first few weeks).

I have another female friend that was always a platonic relationship, that wanted me to be her Man of Honor (as opposed to Maid of Honor) at her wedding (her mother shot the idea down).

Yes, I've had female friends that I have platonic relationships with, who I have occasionally had romantic thoughts about, but know they are completely fantasy, equivalent to the fantasies I've had about Angelina Jolie (to pick an arbitrary example). I am able to entertain thoughts in my head about reality and fantasy and to distinguish the two.

But, yes, there are certain people who are just not able to have platonic relationships with the opposite sex, or certain members of the opposite sex. And there are people who think they can, attempt it, and get into bad situations when things don't work out.

As others have said, humans and human relationships display a very wide variety, even within a specific culture, not to mention huge differences between various cultural norms.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-25, 06:17 PM
I've known people that did know and claim to have unraveled it. Or so they thought.

I do think there are some basic guidelines--treat other people with respect; be aware that you will have to compromise at some point--but one of them is "always be aware that everyone is different, and they don't always think the way you do."


Neither would my boyfriend. :lol:

I'm sure!

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 06:21 PM
.... equivalent to the fantasies I've had about Angelina Jolie (to pick an arbitrary example).

I must disagree....there is nothing "arbitrary" about A.J. :D



Aside....what is it about her, anyway?...is it her "dangerousness" that some men find attractive?

Ya know...kinda like some women are only attracted to "bad boys"?

Buttercup
2012-Oct-25, 06:26 PM
Around here, "friendship between the genders" is seriously frowned upon. That surprised me. Women are not welcome to extend a hand in greeting to a man, for a handshake. Back home that was the norm. Also, in social settings the genders are segregated (unless working together in the kitchen of a charity or similar). This includes at "beer and bbq" parties.

Weird.

I got some flack/gossip for initially not knowing this; behaved like the Midwesterner that I am. It was a rude lesson and some folks are still wanting to chalk me up in an unflattering light. :confused:

I do believe men and women can just be friends. Provided your local social milieu is enlightened enough. :rolleyes:

Cougar
2012-Oct-25, 06:33 PM
The study involved undergrads. Selection bias! Hello?

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 06:38 PM
...treat other people with respect...

Simple respect dictates that one do unto others, as you would have them do unto you (which I don't consider "religion based" at all.)

Now if I could only follow that wisdom in all of my posts, then everything would be "hunky dory". :D

Well, I am trying, so I guess that's something...

blueshift
2012-Oct-25, 06:52 PM
Around here, "friendship between the genders" is seriously frowned upon. That surprised me. Women are not welcome to extend a hand in greeting to a man, for a handshake. Back home that was the norm. Also, in social settings the genders are segregated (unless working together in the kitchen of a charity or similar). This includes at "beer and bbq" parties.

Around where? What city and state...or country?

Buttercup
2012-Oct-25, 06:56 PM
Around where? What city and state...or country?

Desert SW (close to El Paso, TX).

Buttercup
2012-Oct-25, 07:05 PM
Desert SW (close to El Paso, TX).

Wanted to add that initially I thought this exclusive (cultural) to a different ethnic group, due to their religious sentiments (Roman Catholic).

Nope. It's people of my ethnicity (white/"Anglo") too. That surprised me.

A man just 2 years younger than me, who was born and raised only 85 miles from my hometown (in the Midwest), moved here in 1994. I know of him via the charity husband and I volunteer at. This man has totally acclimated to the local attitudes. I don't speak to him unless spoken to first, etc. I could *never* know he's also a former Midwesterner if he hadn't mentioned it, considering.

So my rule of thumb here is I don't extend a hand in greeting (ever) and I do not initiate a conversation with men unless it's necessary. Otherwise I'll get strange looks, frowns, or "talk" (you're flirting, you're up to something, being "inappropriate").

I do not like this. But that's what it is.

Swift
2012-Oct-25, 07:16 PM
I do think there are some basic guidelines--treat other people with respect; be aware that you will have to compromise at some point--but one of them is "always be aware that everyone is different, and they don't always think the way you do."
I think those are good guildelines for all human relationships.

SeanF
2012-Oct-25, 07:25 PM
I have another female friend that was always a platonic relationship, that wanted me to be her Man of Honor (as opposed to Maid of Honor) at her wedding (her mother shot the idea down).
Didn't involve me directly, but I attended a friend/coworker's wedding in which one of the "groomsmen" was a female.

Turns out a girl in a tuxedo can be kind of cute. :)

Gillianren
2012-Oct-25, 07:47 PM
I think those are good guildelines for all human relationships.

I've always felt so.

Durakken
2012-Oct-25, 09:47 PM
In general, as determined by our evolution, most men want as much sex as possible. Further, most people in general aren't actually monogamous. Our sexual organs are designed to be used more in line with casual sexual behavior. In otherword "Friends with benefits" is actually the natural state of the human relationship between individuals that are sexual in any way.

The problem actually comes from theism, feminism (our modern culture), and female psychology in general. You see while men love sex, it isn't a binding thing for most men, where on the other hand it is for most women. So even though a guy might want to have sex with a female friend the fact is they don't see that as an "upping" of the relationship, while female psychology does despite the fact that in the modern world women have more control of pregnancy from which this psychology comes from. This inherently creates problems nd causes the whole "fake pregnancy" thing we see where women trick men into staying with them by pretending they are pregnant or purposely getting pregnant for the same reason... because pregnancy is a key in activating male protective responses, not love, but it's not really about love for women either...it's about power. More power = more protection = more chance of survival. Simple as that.

The main problem lies from a compilation of similar problems to the above. Our culture, influenced by theism and this feminism, have labeled sex, talking about sex, and expressing sexual desires which are not just a male thing, but a person, in general, thing, as something perverse and dirty and not to be talked about. And as such the true problems never get addressed because the true problem is that most of the world of relationships and sexuality and such are all deceptions and when I ask a woman if she'd like to have sex the answer to me may be a yes or a no in a rare occurrence, but the more likely reaction is disgust by the woman at some inclination to believe that me being honest and direct implies that I think less of her and this also elicits scorn and perhaps even physical, if not mental violence from the people, both men and women, around us. Even if this is not the reaction and the woman answers with a yes or no, that answer isn't actually guaranteed to be honest... in fact it's likely that it's not going to be honest because women have an inherent motivation to tease, to challenge, to find if the male is suitable as a father, even if the answer is a yes.

You see, the problem when it comes to gender relations isn't some mystery, it is really simply the dishonesty inherent in the psychology of women about sex that was created by evolution, theism, and feminist ideology. This is then compounded in the culture in general by the puritanical nature of our culture which results in misunderstanding and dishonesty even when noone actually wants or need to be dishonest.

I know some of you are going to say something like "how can you even say that... maybe the woman being asked changes her mind," or some such nonsense. All the experiments have shown that women have determined whether they are willing to sleep with a guy before they even speak to them. It's based on physical appearance, pheremones, and several other factors that if they are not right the answer is no, no matter what. The fact that some women end up sleeping with men they initially say no to displays that there is that dishonesty. That's just one aspect. There is also the after starting to date someone and all like that where it has been shown that women generally want to get on to the sex as soon as or before the men yet are more likely to push off having sex... again showing dishonesty.

I'm not saying women are out and out lying. There are things we do without thinking that are dishonest for various reasons... sometimes it is because we are being honest with our selves, sometimes it is because of some moral code, sometimes it is to hold something over someone else. I'm not even saying that the natural tease and dishonest "denial of service" (:P) is a bad thing, but the fact is it is there and it does cause a problem when its taboo to even point out that if women weren't prone to lie and tease in general they wouldn't have men being "friends" with them when all they want is sex to begin with and if the facts were more widely known and talked about rather than thought of as taboo to even bring up.

Of course the opposite side of this is the side that feminist ideology, that megrfl seem to support, and culture is leaning more towards, is full of is to demonize men and lower them to base animals saying all they want is sex and they're only in it as a conquest over women so much so that these jokes tend to think that all men are walking rape bombs and want to objectify men as nothing more than f-sticks or guardians, protectors, slaves, or chattle that have no emotions, have no brains, have no need for social lives, and are there to be molded and crafted by women to do what they like with. This along with the theistic repression, of course, causes derangement in men and thus along with the dishonesty mentioned above causes all sorts of horrible relationships and events to occur.

I mean, how would you expect a man to act when they are told that they are not a person and treated as a non-person unless they score with a number of women, and women of only a certain appearance. Culturally, men are expected to be this way and that way and all things favorable to women, many of the components contradictory, and all to gain favor from women to gain their humanity. Of course they are going to seem to be a "friend" to you. It is how they attain their personhood.

It's a self-propagating, ever worsening, spiral where it is obvious when one has the facts and the clearness of mind to see them for what they are. Kinda like the whole abduction phenomenon. Someone has a night terror which contains such and such elements. They tell someone and that person if they have a night terror are more likely to experience something similar and that becomes wide spread to the point where everyone who has a night terror is relating the same story and since the majority of people aren't even aware of what night terrors are or that they exist they believe they've been abducted. They believe that and others start seeing multiple cases of these people and go "well there must be aliens abducting people." Eventually, those people get together and discuss how come the government isn't telling us what's going on and look over here at these strange phenomena... etc. etc. The only difference really is that it isn't "aliens are abducting people" that is the baseline thought, but rather that, "men are only out for sex," or some variation on this, that is which causes the propagation of the idea that "if men are friends with women it is only to get sex" and whatever other conclusions you can build onto that frame work... Well there is another difference. In the case of men, there are actual men, and they are affected by what dim-witted, daft, ideologues do and say about them.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 09:58 PM
So my rule of thumb here is I don't extend a hand in greeting (ever) and I do not initiate a conversation with men unless it's necessary. Otherwise I'll get strange looks, frowns, or "talk" (you're flirting, you're up to something, being "inappropriate").

I do not like this. But that's what it is.

My "advice"....move to the west coast. We don't seem to have those type of "restrictions", here.

Buttercup
2012-Oct-25, 10:03 PM
My "advice"....move to the west coast. We don't seem to have those type of "restrictions", here.

I'd like to return home to the Midwest (friendly, socially enlightened, gender equitable), but husband was born/raised here and wants to stay. :(

It is not fun dealing with it.

I've lived 3 differerent places besides Midwest and here, and have never encountered the likes of this. If a man approaches me, that's a-okay and I "should be" receptive/friendly. The other way around? Nope. Something's wrong/suspicious/"funny" about it (unless it's business or noticeably necessary).

Weird.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 10:04 PM
In general...

Yeah, that does seem to be a problem. The rest of your post is just "chock full" of generalizations.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 10:06 PM
If a man approaches me, that's a-okay and I "should be" receptive/friendly. The other way around? Nope. Something's wrong/suspicious/"funny" about it (unless it's business or noticeably necessary).

Weird.


No...it's worse than "weird"...it's irrational.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 10:13 PM
....how would you expect a man to act when they are told that they are not a person and treated as a non-person unless they score with a number of women, and women of only a certain appearance.

Well, I would expect that person to ignore such irrational opinions as they are meaningless.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-25, 10:23 PM
I question that the "fake pregnancy" is really such a thing as some men seem to think. I can't have been the only woman to have had a relationship come apart because of a pregnancy (not that it wasn't already doomed, but I didn't know that at the time), and most of the women I know who did not plan their pregnancies with their partner were deeply concerned about how the man would react. I don't know many women who think it will be certain to make the man stay with them, because too many of us know single mothers.

And speaking as a woman, I have changed my mind . . . in both directions . . . about men I've known. I question any study's validity which shows that women never do that; how can they be sure?

Durakken
2012-Oct-25, 10:26 PM
Yeah, that does seem to be a problem. The rest of your post is just "chock full" of generalizations.

Of course it's full of "generalizations" in that women, men, people "generally" act this way, but not always and not all of them. There are always exceptions or do you wish me to speak inaccurately and irrationally and not say "generally." By trying to dismiss what I'm saying by saying this shows a lack of thinking and rationality and thus means I can justifiably ignore you, but I choose not to, because I'm irrational ^.^ At least according to some.


Well, I would expect that person to ignore such irrational opinions as they are meaningless.

One would expect, but then I would also expect the world to be full of only egalitarian secular atheists if people were actually rational, or at least a majority.

Durakken
2012-Oct-25, 10:41 PM
I question that the "fake pregnancy" is really such a thing as some men seem to think. I can't have been the only woman to have had a relationship come apart because of a pregnancy (not that it wasn't already doomed, but I didn't know that at the time), and most of the women I know who did not plan their pregnancies with their partner were deeply concerned about how the man would react. I don't know many women who think it will be certain to make the man stay with them, because too many of us know single mothers.

And speaking as a woman, I have changed my mind . . . in both directions . . . about men I've known. I question any study's validity which shows that women never do that; how can they be sure?

I don't think all or a majority of women would do such a thing, but to deny that is has or could happen is just delusional in my opinion.
I do however have an explanation for the "Messing up relationships" part. The natural reaction for a man who finds out that a woman, not just a woman he had sex with, is pregnant is one of protection. However, the problem comes from the system in this case which has set about to really mess men up. Men have a psychology to have have offspring and protect them for the most part. Anything that impedes this is stronger than him thus more able to protect the child and a threat to the other task of having more children. The system is set up to pretty much strip all resources a male has from them and give it to their children and their children's mothers thus making the system the protector and an impediment. The reaction to this becomes to deny so that they can continue procreating. It seems obvious to me.

Of course, some guys are just jerks...which is, again, a natural thing for men as that is what is selected for in evolution.

My basic argument is such...
Some of the complaints on both sides are a result of natural evolution which creates things that we like as a species...
However, there are other forces such as culture, theism, and ideologies that make these natural tendencies worse and make it so we can't discuss these things honestly...
Because we can't discuss these things honestly, all the complaints are generally amplified by some amount and self-propagates.

Of course it doesn't help that we are also largely a negative species...ie that we almost always focus on the negatives rather than the positives.

R.A.F.
2012-Oct-25, 11:08 PM
There are always exceptions....

Then we are in agreement.

Nick Theodorakis
2012-Oct-25, 11:26 PM
I think that of course it's possible to have a platonic relationship with a woman. Being friends with a woman and not being romantically interested is no weirder than not being romantically interested in my sister.

Nick

Buttercup
2012-Oct-26, 12:10 AM
No...it's worse than "weird"...it's irrational.

Agreed.

One other (brief) example: When my mother-in-law passed away in early 2011, after the visitation I was seated on a small sofa near the exit (waiting for husband to finish talking with his cousin). Tony (a friend of husband's) came over to talk. He seated himself next to me, we chatted, he then showed me photos on his cellphone of his new/first grandson (Tony is a *young* grandfather). I was amiable and conversed.

Four male in-laws stood nearby, looking uneasy -- at us, at each other. My brother-in-law noticeably did not approve; he was troubled to see me sitting/talking with another man; as if "something" was going on. :eh:

Back home, that scenario wouldn't have caused most anyone to bat an eye.

blueshift
2012-Oct-26, 12:14 AM
Psychology and philosophy may have very less to do with the rise in theism and ideology than what has been posted here. There are always very many reasons why things emerge and become popular. Another take on the rise of Feminism is because the law of supply and demand in the market place dictated that it should. There was a shortage of labor in the late 60s and early 70s and there were not enough men around to fill all the vacancies at the work places. Besides, the standard of living in homes with working women in the early 60s saw the standard of living shoot through the roof. My family was able to pay the mortgage off 15 years earlier and vacations by them starting to take on more expensive character - going to Europe and Hawaii and the Bahamas instead of just a lake in Wisconsin. Even prior to that time women were needed during WWII to work in the factories and help make all the plane parts and bombs that their husbands and brothers were using overseas as military men.

When trying to find a cause it can be easier to just follow the money than the philosophy. Feminism has become a scapegoat today for the same reason. We now have a surplus of workers and the jobs are over in China.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-26, 12:57 AM
I don't think all or a majority of women would do such a thing, but to deny that is has or could happen is just delusional in my opinion.

Oh, it certainly happens. I just think it's more rare than you're implying--especially completely faked pregnancies. Any woman who fakes a pregnancy, for whatever reason, has psychological problems beyond wanting to keep a grip on a particular man.


I do however have an explanation for the "Messing up relationships" part. The natural reaction for a man who finds out that a woman, not just a woman he had sex with, is pregnant is one of protection. However, the problem comes from the system in this case which has set about to really mess men up. Men have a psychology to have have offspring and protect them for the most part. Anything that impedes this is stronger than him thus more able to protect the child and a threat to the other task of having more children. The system is set up to pretty much strip all resources a male has from them and give it to their children and their children's mothers thus making the system the protector and an impediment. The reaction to this becomes to deny so that they can continue procreating. It seems obvious to me.

That's an explanation, but it's a bad one. Given how many single mothers are in poverty--we certainly were, when I was a kid, and my father died--I think it's obvious that there aren't enough safeguards for women left alone with children. Until relatively recently, there was no system set up to track down deadbeat dads; all a man had to do in order to escape responsibility was move to another area. Sometimes, another town was enough. Men have been fathering children and disappearing since long before child support was even a thing; try again.


Of course, some guys are just jerks...which is, again, a natural thing for men as that is what is selected for in evolution.

In the case of my daughter's father, it's that he wasn't terribly mature himself. He wasn't ready to take care of a child, because he was a child in many ways. (He was in his early twenties at the time.) Now, there are sound sociological reasons for how common that seems to be. Humans come into sexual maturity long before they are expected by society to be ready for any kind of real responsibility. You're able to produce a child before you're able to be legally bound by a contract. And my daughter's father is still a bit emotionally stunted, from what I hear, which is part of why I'm not in contact with him. I suspect this is a far more common problem than fear of child support, which is reaching.


My basic argument is such...
Some of the complaints on both sides are a result of natural evolution which creates things that we like as a species...
However, there are other forces such as culture, theism, and ideologies that make these natural tendencies worse and make it so we can't discuss these things honestly...
Because we can't discuss these things honestly, all the complaints are generally amplified by some amount and self-propagates.

I know what your basic argument is. However, I think you're wrong. I think you're failing to take into consideration a rather long list of other issues.


Of course it doesn't help that we are also largely a negative species...ie that we almost always focus on the negatives rather than the positives.

Yes, which is why so many people focus on the times men and women can't be friends because of sexual complications instead of paying attention to all the examples of when they can.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-26, 01:04 AM
Re: the OP
Of course men and women in college are going to feel that way. They're young and beautiful. Wait until they start getting old, fat and/or wrinkly.


One other (brief) example: When my mother-in-law passed away in early 2011, after the visitation I was seated on a small sofa near the exit (waiting for husband to finish talking with his cousin). Tony (a friend of husband's) came over to talk. He seated himself next to me, we chatted, he then showed me photos on his cellphone of his new/first grandson (Tony is a *young* grandfather). I was amiable and conversed.

Four male in-laws stood nearby, looking uneasy -- at us, at each other. My brother-in-law noticeably did not approve; he was troubled to see me sitting/talking with another man; as if "something" was going on. :eh:

Back home, that scenario wouldn't have caused most anyone to bat an eye.

Perhaps this is why you get some unwanted attention, like you mentioned in a different thread. Leave him and move back if you want to feel more comfortable.

Swift
2012-Oct-26, 02:35 AM
By trying to dismiss what I'm saying by saying this shows a lack of thinking and rationality and thus means I can justifiably ignore you, but I choose not to, because I'm irrational ^.^ At least according to some.
I warned in post # 4 that rude behavior would not be tolerated in this thread. Accusing another member of not thinking and announcing that they should be ignored is rude and insulting. This will earn you an infraction.

Durakken
2012-Oct-26, 03:06 AM
That's an explanation, but it's a bad one. Given how many single mothers are in poverty--we certainly were, when I was a kid, and my father died--I think it's obvious that there aren't enough safeguards for women left alone with children. Until relatively recently, there was no system set up to track down deadbeat dads; all a man had to do in order to escape responsibility was move to another area. Sometimes, another town was enough. Men have been fathering children and disappearing since long before child support was even a thing; try again.
...
In the case of my daughter's father, it's that he wasn't terribly mature himself. He wasn't ready to take care of a child, because he was a child in many ways. (He was in his early twenties at the time.) Now, there are sound sociological reasons for how common that seems to be. Humans come into sexual maturity long before they are expected by society to be ready for any kind of real responsibility. You're able to produce a child before you're able to be legally bound by a contract. And my daughter's father is still a bit emotionally stunted, from what I hear, which is part of why I'm not in contact with him. I suspect this is a far more common problem than fear of child support, which is reaching.


I don't know how old you are but if you were in the last oh... 50 years the term dead-beat dad is baloney for the most part, especially any time used for a guy that makes it clear that they don't want to have anything to do with the child. For the last 50 or so years now women have had so many ways to stop pregnancy and birth and have so many better options than raising a child has a single parent that are more mature and not being driven by instinct that you cannot reasonably think that it is ok to force someone to pay for child support when they have rejected the child at every turn. The man has no choice in the matter and cannot even be reasonably sure that, again, the woman was even being honest about birth control in any of it's several forms.

You claim that the man wasn't mature when he left. No, that is wrong. Someone who is mature recognizes that they are not ready and says NO regardless of pressure from society, peers, family, what have. That is the responsible and mature decision. The reason there are so many single mothers who struggle and are impoverished is because they aren't mature. They weren't mature when they had sex, they mature when they didn't take the birth control pill, they weren't mature when they decided not to abort, they weren't mature when they didn't give kid up for adoption, and they sure as hell aren't mature when they demand someone who told them what they are doing isn't right should be enslaved to them for 20 years. A mature person would recognize that they are ruining not just their own life, but probably the lives of just about everyone around them and while my words may be harsh, they are nothing more than the truth of matter and the cold reality about most of those single mothers.

And oh btw, I don't think that there are a lot of women that are claiming fake pregnancy, but a lot of women say they would do it and other heinous accusations, the least of which is "you knocked me up but I magically miscarried" and just the mere fact that the idea is so wide spread and acceptable is enough to raise the point that I was making, which is, you can't complain when a guy becomes a woman's friend believing that he can one day get laid when he can't tell if they are being honest about not wanting to have sex with him or if she is just teasing him.

I would rather ask how many men have had women friends that have said something more or less like this, "I wish I could find someone like you <but not you> to have a relationship with" which is a contradictory statement and again, goes right to the root of the problem. For men, being exactly what a woman is looking for and being close to them and them wanting a sexual relationship with someone like that doesn't mean that even if you are exactly that that they want to have a relationship with you. Why would a guy who is in that situation if he has any feelings in that direction not take that as sign to not become more than friends? IN this situation what happens is...

Woman: I want someone like you
Man: Ok how bout me
Woman: eww no get away from me freak.
Man is left dumbfounded and now demonized.

And again I have to remind you, all of what I'm saying does not apply to everyone, but it is what I see observing people and such around me. I know I look like I'm demonizing women and praising men, but that's only because in this case I feel that the fault of most of the problems that can be brought up are not due to the men like so many want to say. I do however think that it is the fault of men that they let themselves be dragged into the current situation largely for the same type evolved psychological responses to how women act. And in the end I think both men and women are immature idiots that are just following base instincts without ever stopping to think that... "maybe I'm at fault for how I feel about the opposite gender"

ps. Gillian, I want to make it absolutely clear. I don't know you're situation and I know there are exceptions to everything, like I mentioned before, so please don't think I'm saying you're a bad mother or immature or some such thing because that is not what I am saying. I am speaking in terms of the majority from what I see. I really don't care to discuss things on a person by person level, but I realize that with what you said it may be personal to consider what I said... Also I'm not saying immaturity is a bad thing if you fit into that bracket of the majority, however immaturity has nothing to do with infringing on others in the way that the child support and legal system does in those types of cases.

Durakken
2012-Oct-26, 03:16 AM
I warned in post # 4 that rude behavior would not be tolerated in this thread. Accusing another member of not thinking and announcing that they should be ignored is rude and insulting. This will earn you an infraction.

It is irrational to dismiss people without giving a reason why. It is also rude to do so.
Also I didn't say others should ignore them. I said I could justifiably ignore them.

So I hope you are warning them as well.

Also...isn't the whole point of Bad Astronomer to point out that people ARE being irrational. Kinda silly to say I can do it but not you. And it's not like being irrational is some derogatory word. There are strict rules to logic and anything that doesn't adhere to them is irrational. I don't see how you are calling that rude.

if you are saying that it is rude to say that they aren't thinking. I have to point out when they don't actually reply to what is said this shows a lack of thought. Factually. It's like if I said i can't see in front of me and my eyes are open you would likely say that that shows a lack of light. Same thing here.

Since when have facts become rude?

Buttercup
2012-Oct-26, 03:17 AM
Perhaps this is why you get some unwanted attention, like you mentioned in a different thread. Leave him and move back if you want to feel more comfortable.

I do avoid (but gosh, to have to consistently avoid half the population "or else" is crummy - especially when you were not raised like that). However, as it was a) mother-in-law's (of 19 years) funeral visitation, b) those male in-laws are seldom around, c) husband was in same room, and d) Tony is husband's close friend and he approached me...I was surprised at the reaction. :(

Goes to show how entrenched the mindset is. *shakes head*

PlutonianEmpire
2012-Oct-26, 06:45 AM
In the case of my daughter's father, it's that he wasn't terribly mature himself. He wasn't ready to take care of a child, because he was a child in many ways. (He was in his early twenties at the time.) Now, there are sound sociological reasons for how common that seems to be. Humans come into sexual maturity long before they are expected by society to be ready for any kind of real responsibility. You're able to produce a child before you're able to be legally bound by a contract. And my daughter's father is still a bit emotionally stunted, from what I hear, which is part of why I'm not in contact with him. I suspect this is a far more common problem than fear of child support, which is reaching.

This forum originally started out being depressing as heck for me because of having to face grim astronomical realities I don't like, and now it's depressing as heck because of the discussions of grim interpersonal realities as well. :( The latter of which applies to me personally as I myself am quite the same way in terms of maturity, thus the reason I find it depressing. :(

(Sorry, didn't mean to be a downer or annoying or something. :o )

Anyways, on topic, in terms of platonic vs romantic relationships between members of the opposite sex, I think it is a *huge* YMMV (your mileage may vary) sort of thing. If anyone's learned anything from all their years on this puny Earth, is that life is almost never a black-or-white sort of deal. There's countless shades of grey (no pun intended), especially in interpersonal relationships.

I think I recall seeing an article a few months ago as to why French women seemed to be so much more successful in the romance department, was that a lot of them said pretty much what I said above, in that love is not a black-or-white (loves-me-loves-me-not) proposition; and it's not always the same amount of love for eternity too. One can love another a lot, and eventually love them less and less as time goes on, and vice versa. And yes, mistakes happen sometimes, it's a part of life. Just hopefully, things work out in the end, regardless of whether or not they are in love or not.

And as for myself, I certainly believe it is possible to maintain platonic opposite sex friendships throughout life, with minimal trouble, regardless of one's internal thoughts. :)

EDIT: And yes, maturity does play a role in a lot of it.

tusenfem
2012-Oct-26, 06:46 AM
I
So I hope you are warning them as well.



The warning in post #4 was for ALL in the thread.
That you chose not to adhere to it is your own choice.
And you have been long enough here that you know that arguing moderation is not done in the thread but through reporting it.
That gets you another stinger.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-26, 05:10 PM
This forum originally started out being depressing as heck for me because of having to face grim astronomical realities I don't like, and now it's depressing as heck because of the discussions of grim interpersonal realities as well. :( The latter of which applies to me personally as I myself am quite the same way in terms of maturity, thus the reason I find it depressing. :(

That you can acknowledge such things in yourself already puts you ahead of my daughter's father, I can assure you. Self-awareness has never been his strongest suit. If it makes you feel better, she has great adoptive parents, and his mom and dad are doing their best to be good grandparents. He hasn't spoken to her since she was three (she turns fifteen next month), and she's extremely disdainful of him. Why shouldn't she be? She's already better at dealing with people.

You should know that I don't talk this way about him to her. No matter how much of an idiot I think he is, I still follow my policy of never saying bad things about a parent to the child. (Actually, there are a few exceptions. But she will never be one of them.) She knows what he's like, but if she ever manages to have a relationship with him, I don't want her to feel that I'm making her choose.


I think I recall seeing an article a few months ago as to why French women seemed to be so much more successful in the romance department, was that a lot of them said pretty much what I said above, in that love is not a black-or-white (loves-me-loves-me-not) proposition; and it's not always the same amount of love for eternity too. One can love another a lot, and eventually love them less and less as time goes on, and vice versa. And yes, mistakes happen sometimes, it's a part of life. Just hopefully, things work out in the end, regardless of whether or not they are in love or not.

Ideally, they also know that there's a lower limit for love beyond which it doesn't always make sense to continue the relationship! I don't mean the initial bloom of "in love," but if you wake up every morning wondering why you're still putting up with the other person, that's time to move on.


And as for myself, I certainly believe it is possible to maintain platonic opposite sex friendships throughout life, with minimal trouble, regardless of one's internal thoughts. :)

My therapist agrees. She says that it's often healthier not to act on your internal thoughts, because your mind doesn't always have any sense and comes up with all sorts of terrible ideas.


EDIT: And yes, maturity does play a role in a lot of it.

How could it not?

IreneAnt
2012-Oct-26, 06:29 PM
Desert SW (close to El Paso, TX).

Wow!! From your original post, Buttercup, and other things you have mentioned in this thread, I would have guessed you had moved to Saudi Arabia, or somewhere else like that, where women and men are strictly segregated.

Buttercup
2012-Oct-26, 06:53 PM
Wow!! From your original post, Buttercup, and other things you have mentioned in this thread, I would have guessed you had moved to Saudi Arabia, or somewhere else like that, where women and men are strictly segregated.

Yeah. :( I'd like to know how this mindset developed here.

Back home in the Midwest people are very friendly and the genders socialize; and likely (?) that was due to the original pioneers being snow-bound for weeks on end (cabin fever) and GLAD to get out and socialize with others? Towns are also very close together.

Maybe the towns being so far apart here was another factor. The white folks born/raised in this area are also "cold fish." They are very aloof and standoffish. Totally surprised me.

If I'd known this before moving here, my husband wouldn't know me. I wouldn't have moved here.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-26, 07:01 PM
Yeah. :( I'd like to know how this mindset developed here.

Back home in the Midwest people are very friendly and the genders socialize; and likely (?) that was due to the original pioneers being snow-bound for weeks on end (cabin fever) and GLAD to get out and socialize with others? Towns are also very close together.

Maybe the towns being so far apart here was another factor. The white folks born/raised in this area are also "cold fish." They are very aloof and standoffish. Totally surprised me.

If I'd known this before moving here, my husband wouldn't know me. I wouldn't have moved here.

This is why I'm glad I was raised in the Midwest, although central CA isn't necessarily a bad place, nor is the Pacific Northwest, but I'm glad we didn't stick around Oklahoma, though I'm not sure it was as segregated as El Paso sounds like it is.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-26, 07:08 PM
I grew up in New England, so even moving to the Midwest was a culture shock. If I'd moved to El Paso I don't think I would have stayed.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-26, 08:57 PM
In Olympia, it's more surprising when groups of adults don't have men and women together. Olympia is very laid back in a lot of ways, though.

blueshift
2012-Oct-26, 11:14 PM
In the Chicago area it has always been acceptable. Girls high school basketball became a big hit here in the 80s and throughout the Midwest in states like Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio. The coaches and parents would shout at the girls with the same vigor they do with the boys, feeling that girls needed that input that was missing. Many super athletes came from here and one in particular I remember was the MVP in Chicago in a league where both the boys and girls played on the same teams in grade school. Kim Williams. She went pro in Europe. Candace Parker came from here and won the slam dunk contest against all the boys in her senior year. Her team just won the WNBA title.

swampyankee
2012-Oct-27, 02:23 AM
.

So my rule of thumb here is I don't extend a hand in greeting (ever) and I do not initiate a conversation with men unless it's necessary. Otherwise I'll get strange looks, frowns, or "talk" (you're flirting, you're up to something, being "inappropriate").

I do not like this. But that's what it is.

You could move to the Northeast. Most males around here have figured out "woman talk to me" does not equal "woman want me."

(eta) I think most men have figured that last out; some haven't (I'm male. I figured it out when I was about 14). I wonder, though, how much of Buttercup's observation is generational. I know, from both my daughters, that their generation has much more non-romantic male-female relationships than mine had (I'm 58; my daughters are in their 20s). The social circle of my older daughter, especially, is a mix of men and women, with no romantic relationships within the social circle, with the romantic partners either being incorporated into the group or pulling one of the people (almost always a woman) out of the group.

PlutonianEmpire
2012-Oct-27, 05:43 AM
That you can acknowledge such things in yourself already puts you ahead of my daughter's father, I can assure you. Self-awareness has never been his strongest suit. If it makes you feel better, she has great adoptive parents, and his mom and dad are doing their best to be good grandparents. He hasn't spoken to her since she was three (she turns fifteen next month), and she's extremely disdainful of him. Why shouldn't she be? She's already better at dealing with people.
Actually, I myself was adopted as well, at the tender age of 2. Never met the people who made me, but based on what I've been told, it's better that way. Even more so, as I am probably equally disdainful of my own birth mother, for very personal reasons I'd rather not discuss publicly, at least not yet on this particular board.


You should know that I don't talk this way about him to her. No matter how much of an idiot I think he is, I still follow my policy of never saying bad things about a parent to the child. (Actually, there are a few exceptions. But she will never be one of them.) She knows what he's like, but if she ever manages to have a relationship with him, I don't want her to feel that I'm making her choose.
I think it a pretty good policy all around. My adoptive parents have that policy themselves, as far as I can tell, as they're happily married since before I was born and still are. :)

Sucks it's not always the same in the reverse though. I know most people are guilty of talking smack about their own parents at one point or another during their lives, especially when growing up.


Ideally, they also know that there's a lower limit for love beyond which it doesn't always make sense to continue the relationship! I don't mean the initial bloom of "in love," but if you wake up every morning wondering why you're still putting up with the other person, that's time to move on.
I'm sure they do. :) Dunno why that part slipped my mind. :o


My therapist agrees. She says that it's often healthier not to act on your internal thoughts, because your mind doesn't always have any sense and comes up with all sorts of terrible ideas.
It is actually a bit comforting to know that I'm not the only one on this particular board who sees professional help. :)

Plus, seeing a Wiki article on intrusive thoughts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thoughts) (the ones you just mentioned), kinda helps to put things into perspective and get a handle on things, at least for me.


How could it not?
Because I say so? :evil:

blueshift
2012-Oct-27, 03:43 PM
I am curious to know how many here have children? The reason I bring that up is because it has appeared to me, from my viewpoint, that I can sense a large difference in relating to a single mother than a woman who has not had children. The attitudes toward men differ greatly from my experience. I enjoyed being a single parent and even preferred it over being a married parent. When I am around single or married mothers the subject of raising kids supersedes everything else. Single or married fathers I meet I can connect with easily as well. It is like a community feeling I have always had with those who always felt the parental urge stronger than the reproductive urge.

I have no desire to get close to any of them but communicating with other parents has always been easier. A child is the result of sex and if one sees kids as a pain to put up with then the opposite gender can likely be seen as a pain as well. If I had anything in common with some single parent women (aside from loving the kids), I would pursue things a little. I just don't have anything in common with any that I can tell and it is too time consuming although this is an interesting subject to talk about.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-27, 05:01 PM
Actually, I myself was adopted as well, at the tender age of 2. Never met the people who made me, but based on what I've been told, it's better that way. Even more so, as I am probably equally disdainful of my own birth mother, for very personal reasons I'd rather not discuss publicly, at least not yet on this particular board.

What, just because it's none of our business? I disagree in general, however, though there may be details about your personal situation that make you the exception. In general, it's healthier for everyone if the adopted child knows the birth families. At minimum, I hope you've got medical histories.


I think it a pretty good policy all around. My adoptive parents have that policy themselves, as far as I can tell, as they're happily married since before I was born and still are. :)

Oh, it doesn't just apply to my daughter. I don't say bad things to my boyfriend about his mother aside from a generic frustration about how she barges into the apartment. (His brother came over yesterday; he rang the doorbell. I answered the door just as she was getting out of the car and asking if he had. I thanked him, at least, for waiting until the door was answered; ringing the doorbell does not mean you're invited in automatically!) I have a few friends where I'll validate their feelings, when it's important, but even if I don't like someone's parent, that doesn't mean I tell the kid.


Sucks it's not always the same in the reverse though. I know most people are guilty of talking smack about their own parents at one point or another during their lives, especially when growing up.

Well, I don't say bad things about the child to the parent, either! However, I do have friends who have truly awful parents. One of my friends has the worst mother I've ever known personally. She's not physically abusive, but I've never been sure how much that's because she weighs over three hundred pounds and just can't move well enough. If he wants to say bad things about her, it's completely understandable.


It is actually a bit comforting to know that I'm not the only one on this particular board who sees professional help. :)

I can assure you that there are more than a few. I'm not naming names, but I've gotten private messages from several people thanking me for my openness about my mental illness, because it makes them feel better knowing someone else has one. I also consider myself to have saved a life in a series of PMs that involved telling someone to get help right away.


Plus, seeing a Wiki article on intrusive thoughts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thoughts) (the ones you just mentioned), kinda helps to put things into perspective and get a handle on things, at least for me.

Yeah, they're no fun. I'm glad you're feeling better.

Blueshift, I am in a kind of a curious position regarding being a parent. In many people's eyes, I don't count as one. Certainly, I am not raising my daughter, and that does mean I'm in a different category. I am non-custodial and have been since the day after she was born. I have no legal rights to her. However, it is still true that, if nothing else, I can talk about kids with other parents.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Oct-27, 10:45 PM
I'm not naming names, but I've gotten private messages from several people thanking me for my openness about my mental illness, because it makes them feel better knowing someone else has one.

Never underestimate how much good you are doing through your honesty, Gillian. Seriously. I don't mean to flatter you, or to patronise you, or to indulge in King Lear-derived platitudes, but you come across as a heck of a lot more sane than many who do not have diagnosed mental issues. There have been occasions when this has helped me in my day job.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-28, 01:22 AM
Thanks, Paul. I'm seriously considering writing a book about the stigma and why we need to fight it.

Buttercup
2012-Oct-28, 01:41 AM
Thanks, Paul. I'm seriously considering writing a book about the stigma and why we need to fight it.

I hope you do, and best of luck with that plan.

Three years ago I encountered a woman about my age who, if I weren't familiar with psychology (work and home study)...I would have probably "lost it" and punched her in the nose. And I am not given to physical violence.

But knowing what I do, I'm rather certain she has a legit issue; being aware helped me understand.

I hope her husband has since woken up and gotten her help. When I knew them, he turned a blind eye/enabled; that was not only unfair to those of us subjected to her behaviors, but to her as well (rejection, shunning; she seemed genuinely confused by those reactions, which only fueled her hostility -- which she definitely expressed, and which of course only compounded the situation).

She wouldn't allow me to befriend her, unfortunately. Ironic, because I understood enough to have been a helpful friend.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-28, 03:35 AM
She wouldn't allow me to befriend her, unfortunately. Ironic, because I understood enough to have been a helpful friend.

Some people prefer to suffer in silence. Sometimes it's cultural, sometimes people just want to suffer alone.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-28, 06:53 AM
And, of course, personalities don't always mesh.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Oct-28, 10:54 AM
Blueshift, I am in a kind of a curious position regarding being a parent. In many people's eyes, I don't count as one. Certainly, I am not raising my daughter, and that does mean I'm in a different category. I am non-custodial and have been since the day after she was born. I have no legal rights to her. However, it is still true that, if nothing else, I can talk about kids with other parents.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it part of an open adoption that you actually do have some rights that closed-adoption birth parents don't have, such as the right to a certain about of contact, which implies the right to know how to contact her?

Though I'm aware that those are rights by contract rather than by law.

megrfl
2012-Oct-28, 04:13 PM
Ermahgerd, I'm a feminist.

That's my conclusion. I don't like to be labeled, but yeah, I am.

It certainly doesn't mean that I view males as inferior, that's ridiculous, but I do consider them my equal.

Regarding Buttercup and the nightmare social situation that she is enduring, my advice is to be yourself. If you want to speak with the opposite sex, initiate conversation, laugh with them and so on and so fourth, just do it. There is absolutely no way that you should be concerned about what other people think. Seriously, your husband, I'm sure, knew that you were? an outgoing vivacious person when he married you, don't let him and others squelch you. And as far as these men flirting with you and "stalking" you, if this is unwanted, be blunt and tell them to go (you know) jump off a bridge. Be powerful, be empowered or as someone suggested, leave the area. You've got one life, live it and be free.

I know male and females can be just friends, frankly, that is exactly what my male friend and I were for years, that is until I told him about the separation. I have plenty of male friends, the problem here was he was one of my best friends. It was a huge loss. His timing was absolutely horrible, he seemed almost excited about my separation and subsequent divorce. Bad, bad, bad, is about all can say about it.

I have a diverse group of male friends and that is all they are, friends, but I make it clear that I am in a relationship or uninterested in anything more.

Ps. I'm gonna go mow. Push mow. :)

Gillianren
2012-Oct-28, 06:52 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it part of an open adoption that you actually do have some rights that closed-adoption birth parents don't have, such as the right to a certain about of contact, which implies the right to know how to contact her?

Though I'm aware that those are rights by contract rather than by law.

Those rights are only official in the State of Oregon, and then only barely. Oregon is the only state in the Union where the birth records of children given up for adoption are unsealed, regardless of what agreement birth parents and adoptive parents may have. I do not have the right to contact her. I do not have the right to know where they live. In theory, they could pick up tomorrow and not tell me where they'd moved to, and I wouldn't have the right to go looking for them. Of course, she'll be eighteen in three years and it will be all up to her at that point, but for now, her parents have the absolute legal right to sever all contact with me.

FarmMarsNow
2012-Oct-29, 03:48 PM
Here's what I think. It takes time for us to figure out who we are and what we truly want. Anything sensual only feels good now and then -- never constantly. Romantic love is no exception! If a person tries to experience romance constantly it will only lead to disappointment and the search for other pleasures. There are times in romance when you must stop feeling romantic, because otherwise you lose the ability to feel it. Its like being in a room full of flowers and getting to where you can't smell the flowers any longer. This has a big impact on the friends question.

I think that it would be easy for me to be just friends if I were momentarily in romantic satisfaction, but satisfaction is never consistent. With the 'Just friends' question there is emotional confusion for men, I say from (limited) experience. I know the reason, and I think that it is the same reason women get confused. When a man has been lonely for a while he becomes ready for romance, but when he's been in romance for a while he becomes numb and ready for his relationship to change. He must back off, and he must understand this is natural. If he doesn't understand this about himself, then he's less likely to understand whether he is still in love or not. (He's in love if the romance is repeatable, re-discoverable.) The 'Just friends' question comes from the wild speculations men make about ourselves and what we are, what we need, what the heck's going on, why 'Love' seems fleeting.

I wish my parents could have told me these things, but they were too busy learning them.

Click Ticker
2012-Oct-29, 03:58 PM
Candace Parker came from here and won the slam dunk contest against all the boys in her senior year. Her team just won the WNBA title.

Well, she may have won the contest, but she didn't dunk better than the boys in the contest. She won because she dunked well for a girl and it was a novelty. No different than Spud Webb at 5' 6" couldn't do the dunks that Michael Jordan could, but won the contest because it was cool to see a short guy who can dunk.

Does anyone honestly think that she can dunk better than Josh Smith (who, at 19 years won the NBA slam dunk contest the following year) or JR Smith (Finished 3rd in that same NBA dunk contest behind Josh and Amare Stoudamire)? Both 1st round NBA draft picks who she "beat" in that 2004 dunk contest.

I've never been a fan of subjective contests where you don't have to measurably be the best to win.

- now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

blueshift
2012-Oct-30, 12:53 AM
Well, she may have won the contest, but she didn't dunk better than the boys in the contest. She won because she dunked well for a girl and it was a novelty. No different than Spud Webb at 5' 6" couldn't do the dunks that Michael Jordan could, but won the contest because it was cool to see a short guy who can dunk.

Does anyone honestly think that she can dunk better than Josh Smith (who, at 19 years won the NBA slam dunk contest the following year) or JR Smith (Finished 3rd in that same NBA dunk contest behind Josh and Amare Stoudamire)? Both 1st round NBA draft picks who she "beat" in that 2004 dunk contest.

I've never been a fan of subjective contests where you don't have to measurably be the best to win.

- now back to your regularly scheduled thread...Whoops! That is what I get for reading Chicago's press views of the subject. I guess that one would be a novelty. In the case of Kim Williams it is not. Isiah Thomas was the only other high school player I ever saw handle a basketball that well and pass with such precision. Members of the Chicago Bulls used to come and watch her play. There wasn't one boy in Illinois who didn't think she was the most awesome guard that could play with "anybody". All-stater Lucas Johnson, a player at my former HS, Maine West and at Illinois talked about her and played against her in some pick up games and echoed the same opinion. The film "Hoop Dreams" (that could be the wrong title - I know of a HS basketball film starring Gene Hackman and that wasn't it. The film was a documentary with no actors.)was going to be centered on her until the film producer decided that one of the boys at Marshall High School had a better story going with his being transferred to St. Joseph... -now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

The best example of a male/female friendship that I know of is between my ex and myself, divorced for 38 years and the best of friends. I brought her our son each weekend and became good friends with her husband of a second marriage. They had two children of their own and I took them with on vacations and shared time with them. All 3 kids are in my will..We will be sharing Thanksgiving together.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-30, 01:17 AM
That must be a great relief to your son. So much better than if you fought all the time!

blueshift
2012-Oct-30, 04:54 PM
He doesn't really notice it much. He just got used to having 3 parents all his life just as the other two did. They didn't always like it. We never looked at any of them through rose colored glasses when it came to conflicts with teachers at school or the neighbors in both neighborhoods. We felt that the adults had to stick together to keep the neighborhood in peace and for integration to grow into an adult trust. We felt the same about school.

FarmMarsNow
2012-Oct-30, 11:29 PM
blueshift, I hear this from time to time of people remaining good friends after they divorce. Its great though I don't think its unusual. A lot of formulaic plans for relationships don't work like they're presupposed to do.

Githyanki
2012-Oct-31, 08:58 PM
I can't have female friends; every friendship I've ever had with a woman has turned into "More than friends / relationship" or I've I didn't want to go there and remain friends; they seldom talk to me ever again as the friendship drifts apart.

I'm good-looking, strong, tall, and I have charisma / people-skills. Any platonic-friendship will turn into something more given time.

I'm also introverted. I like girls when they show up and I like it when they leave. Someone stated on this thread that guys always want sex. That's not true. In my case, I've worked / been around lots of women. I there are ones I think are pretty, but I wouldn't have sex with because their personalities are yuck. And being introverted, I don't just want to hook up with some random chick I met at a bar; I'd rather "Hook-up" with a girl I knew and she's rad on the inside rather than some desperate alcoholic mad at her boyfriend.

I tend to keep things casual. Especially at work. I've had girls tell me I'm handsome then ask probing questions like how I've never been "pervy" with them like the other guys at work (they have boyfriends) or women take off their wedding ring and ask me out to lunch.

Gigabyte
2012-Nov-12, 02:07 PM
This thread has so much win

blueshift
2012-Nov-12, 04:34 PM
Things still can boil down to how each gender views the word "friendship". I think when women tell men they only wish to be friends they can really complicate matters. Male friendships can call for more commitment than dating or sex does in a male's eyes.

megrfl
2012-Nov-12, 10:30 PM
Things still can boil down to how each gender views the word "friendship". I think when women tell men they only wish to be friends they can really complicate matters. Male friendships can call for more commitment than dating or sex does in a male's eyes.

Can you expand on that?

From your post I'm thinking males/females in the Marine Corp. for example. Friendships to that degree?

Women to women friendships, and I mean friendships in the purest form are lock and key. I don't think a women, aside from her spouse/significant other shares the same content with a male best friend and vice versa.

Durakken
2012-Nov-12, 10:58 PM
Things still can boil down to how each gender views the word "friendship". I think when women tell men they only wish to be friends they can really complicate matters. Male friendships can call for more commitment than dating or sex does in a male's eyes.


Can you expand on that?

From your post I'm thinking males/females in the Marine Corp. for example. Friendships to that degree?

Women to women friendships, and I mean friendships in the purest form are lock and key. I don't think a women, aside from her spouse/significant other shares the same content with a male best friend and vice versa.

For women sex implies a selection of mate to create offspring
For men sex implies a lottery ticket... more or less.

For women friendship implies a tenuous alliance between individuals in competition with each other.
For men friendship implies protection and reliance between individuals that a weakness in either is problematic for both.

Broad, generalized, and looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint.

Solfe
2012-Nov-13, 12:30 AM
Since I long ago ran out of popcorn, I have to say that I feel "just friends" is a mission statement for public consumption and usually not a good description of what is actually happening.

If you have a pair of people who never say the magic words "just friends" is a more earnest situation. Whatever it is that is happening is exactly as portrayed and includes the possibility that no one has a clue as to what is going on.

When the "just friends" statement is hung out there, I can't help but notice that all is not "as advertised". It doesn't have to be any particular kind of relationship, just the relationship is not exactly "just friends" including the possibility that everyone is prompting a platonic friendship.

Some of the worst scenarios involve a "baggage dump" where one person checks their bags at the door and proceeds to have a "not so just friends" relationship with person B, then attempt to return to "just friends" the next day. Repeat is tolerated.

For some reason men are better about writing songs about this one, but women are hardly the only ones to initiate this scenario.

Gillianren
2012-Nov-13, 01:45 AM
So if I understand you correctly, there is no accurate way to respond to a question about whether or not you're in a relationship with someone if you're not. If you respond that you're "just friends," it's because you're glossing over the true, not-just-friends nature of the relationship?

blueshift
2012-Nov-13, 02:32 AM
Can you expand on that?

From your post I'm thinking males/females in the Marine Corp. for example. Friendships to that degree?Yes. I did have a woman tell me once that we are just friends. So I asked her if she wanted to come over and work on my motorcycle or my CGGT mount or to play baseball (hardball variety against some people trying to break into professional baseball) or give me pointers on how to use my router more efficiently. That is what I do with my friends.


Women to women friendships, and I mean friendships in the purest form are lock and key. I don't think a women, aside from her spouse/significant other shares the same content with a male best friend and vice versa.Agreed. My astronomy lab partner has a wife who understands just that as he and I head out to dark sky sites 60 miles away every Friday and Saturday evening and we stay out until 2 or 3 a.m. every summer night and just until 1 a.m. after we set the clocks back. She can't wait for him to head out there with me each weekend. I'll let you think about that last sentence for a while.

Solfe
2012-Nov-13, 02:34 AM
So if I understand you correctly, there is no accurate way to respond to a question about whether or not you're in a relationship with someone if you're not. If you respond that you're "just friends," it's because you're glossing over the true, not-just-friends nature of the relationship?

I would have to say that, in response to a question of relationship status, "just friends" is unnatural if you actually mean it. "No." is a little more direct and understandable.

Where "just friends" is more noticeable is in introductions in passing. You are by no means obligated to identify someone with you let alone establish a relationship status in passing. So, saying a pre-emptive "just friends" is a clue that something is not right. It is entirely possible that I am a simpleton, but from my personal experience, being introduced as "just friends" indicates a very rapid change in status, one way or another.

At some point, when I was younger, I figured out that not answering relationship questions is easier and more fixable than answering wrongly or with too much detail. I had very strong opinion that if I couldn't name it, I wouldn't bother.

Gillianren
2012-Nov-13, 07:53 AM
I would have to say that, in response to a question of relationship status, "just friends" is unnatural if you actually mean it. "No." is a little more direct and understandable.

But rude if you're telling customers so. I'm routinely asked if I'm married to my boss at faire. While this may be rude of the customers, an abrupt "no" isn't more polite.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Nov-13, 12:03 PM
But rude if you're telling customers so. I'm routinely asked if I'm married to my boss at faire. While this may be rude of the customers, an abrupt "no" isn't more polite.
I though the correct response in that situation was "Good gods! No!"

Solfe
2012-Nov-13, 12:21 PM
"No, he's my boss, Ha-ha-ha." isn't rude.
or "He just hangs out here, he seems to like the music." would be even funnier.

Gillianren
2012-Nov-13, 06:35 PM
I though the correct response in that situation was "Good gods! No!"

A response I've given a time or two, yes. But we are just friends. We're both in relationships with other people. I don't see how saying it proves we want to be something more instead of with the people we're with.