Post #228,202
10/5/05 2:49:11 PM
|
Questions-
Can men and women be platonic friends or does sex always have to enter into the equation?
If you have a romantic relationship with someone and it ends, can you continue on as "just friends"? Is that even possible?
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,203
10/5/05 2:57:40 PM
|
usually they hate me :-)
joking,
yes it is possible but always remember sex can ruin a friendship. I find it usually depends on the relationship. If it was a half assed fling no problem. If it was more intense , more dificult.
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #228,204
10/5/05 2:59:18 PM
|
Men and Women can be friends.
And sex doesn't have to enter into it.
When a relationship is over, the friendship can also remain.
I have friends that fit both of these conditions. Close friends...
Keep in mind that for both these conditions, sometimes 'things can happen' - that doesn't mean that was the object for establishing or maintaining the friendship though.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #228,205
10/5/05 2:59:19 PM
10/5/05 9:37:15 PM
|
Of course men and women can be platonic friends
I've got several women friends. While I may occasionally lapse into a fantasy of sweaty grappling with them, I would rather not pursue that to reality because, in answer to your second question, being "just friends" after a sexual relationship is rarer than hen's teeth.
YMMV
Re-reading your original question, I see that you referenced romantic, not sexuual relationships. Pardon me if I'm being obtuse but is there a difference? If romatic; then sexual, seems to be a given, . . . at least in my experience. Am I misunderstanding "romantic"?
-----------------------------------------
George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty.
--Donald Dean Richards Jr.
Edited by Silverlock
Oct. 5, 2005, 09:37:15 PM EDT
|
Post #228,320
10/5/05 10:49:04 PM
|
The two are distinct, though highly correlated
Anyone who has had a quicky had a non-romantic sexual relationship.
Going the other way, romance is much richer than just sex. If a man and a woman go out to dinner, talk late, enjoy each other's company, hold hands and are otherwise intimate, I'd call that a romantic relationship. If there was no kissing, fondling, sex etc, then I wouldn't call it a sexual relationship. Openminded adults usually progress from one to the other, but not always. For one thing the romance could break off before it naturally progressed. Or one or both parties has strong convictions about sex outside of marriage.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,394
10/6/05 11:26:55 AM
|
Fantasies about grappling
brings sex into it. I'm talking no fantasies, no fleeting thoughts, no appreciation. of her mammaries, rear end or other naughty bits. No desire. No curiosity.
Can a man and a woman have a completely asexual relationship?
There is a difference between romantic and sexual relationships. A romantic relationship implies sex. A sexual relationship doesnt necessarily imply romance.
Woman typically cant have the sex without the emotions kicking up.
Can men?
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,395
10/6/05 11:38:44 AM
|
Did you really just ask that?
And another thing. Why would a man not at least notice her naughty bits?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,398
10/6/05 11:40:23 AM
|
Yeah, at that standard
there ain't no such animal. Bionerd, we are genetically wired to notice that stuff; we quite literally can't help it.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #228,400
10/6/05 11:42:26 AM
|
Still yes, IMO
Been there. Done that. Very often in a work context, in fact.
As for sex leading to emotion, I think that varies by the guy. For me, the two are closely linked. It has happened that they weren't, but that's rare. However I know guys for whom having them not be linked appears to be the norm.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,402
10/6/05 11:47:48 AM
|
Well, romance is a social construct
while sex is an instinct. Of course, social constructs like that are very powerful in human beings. However, they are not universal; you were brought up to link them and Those Other Dudes were not.
Note for example the likely rates of infidelity in say Elizabethan England. Sex and emotion were not linked, though reproduction and emotion were: people were quite happy to fuck around, but if you threatened someone's children, they'd quite happily get all medieval on your ass... mediated by whether the children in question were in fact part of The Family as marked by society (i.e. marriage) or not.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #228,571
10/7/05 2:11:37 AM
|
Are you SURE?
Read [link|http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14756|http://www.americans...ail/assetid/14756]. That suggests to me that there could well be a biological basis to intertwining sex and emotion, and that effect can vary between individuals. The fact that the same chemicals that trigger fidelity in voles are known to be found in humans, and are known to be tied to sex, is even more suggestive.
Besides, if there wasn't some biological drive being tapped into by romance, I strongly doubt that it would manage to be as effective a trigger as it is in our relationships. I also doubt that it would appear in as many forms in as many cultures over as it does. Sure, the actions that are seen as romantic vary widely by culture. But there seems to be a fairly universal underlying pattern.
I don't know where you get your caricature of Elizabethan England, but I'd suggest re-reading Shakespeare. His poems provide ample proof that romance existed then.
Now I'll grant that the amount which romance is emphasized varies over time. Just as people's susceptibility to it seems to vary by individual. Clearly it is not all biology.
But that doesn't mean that there can't be a biological component.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,406
10/6/05 12:01:03 PM
|
Not possible IMO
Men think about sex every 7* seconds. Not acting on those thoughts is possible, not having them is not.
*I can't remember where this came from but there was a study or survey or something where it was shown the average male thought about sex, er, a lot.
-----------------------------------------
George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty.
--Donald Dean Richards Jr.
|
Post #228,409
10/6/05 12:14:16 PM
|
Only if one of them is asexual to start off with
Given "reasonable" attactiveness, which varies by individual, then by definition, attraction will happen.
If one of the people are simply asexual (they do exist) then it won't.
Or if one of them can ONLY be stimiluated by certain cues / kinks / whatever, then the attraction won't happen because the key wasn't turned.
But given a random couple of people, both of which are not repulsed by each other, both of which enjoy a range of "normal" sexual stimuli (I'm not going to bother debating normal), then there is absolutely no possibility the guy won't be thinking about sex.
A lot. Every 7 seconds is a reasonable average. Depends on what other distractions there are in the room.
No matter what Ben tells you.
|
Post #228,414
10/6/05 12:47:33 PM
|
By definition . . .
. . a relationship between a "man" and a "woman" is sexual. Whether or not there is sexual activity between the two is another matter entirely.
A man considers the sexual possibilities of every woman he encounters. He may or may not find those possibilities enticing but they will be considered. He may or may not act on possibilities that are enticing due to other considerations, but men simply have no options here, it's part of the basic programming. Women are programmed differently.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #228,415
10/6/05 12:47:51 PM
|
If the man is gay, yes.
Otherwise, forget it. He won't necessarily act on it, but he'll think it. Anyone who says differently is lying in order to appear "better" than most.
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #228,206
10/5/05 3:15:00 PM
|
Looking at it the wrong way
Try this. (And keep in mind that it's from back when I was single, and thus younger and stupider.)
If we're friends, what's wrong with friends having sex occasionaly? And just because you start having sex, why do you have to redfine the "relationship" to something else? Dating, going steady, boyfriend/girlfriend, partner ... women are the ones always asking, "What are we to each other?"
For guys it's friends I can sleep with / friends I can't sleep with.
Why are you friends with someone? Some it's because you both like sports; some because you like the same movies; some because you can sleep with them, or at least think there's a chance you might be able to. If the only thing you ever matched on was the sex then no, you won't be friends when you break up/stop having sex. If you connected on other things, then you can still be friends.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,208
10/5/05 4:04:33 PM
10/5/05 4:05:17 PM
|
Define Romantice Relationship
If it was, as Drew stated, just for sex, then it should be possible to remain friends after the sex stopped.
HOWEVER, if there were "romantic feelings" a.k.a. "love", then it would be very difficult to return to "just friends".
I do have platonic female friends, and like Silverlock, occassionally have the "sweaty visions", but I know that doing so would change the relationship (and my wife would kill me)
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Edited by jbrabeck
Oct. 5, 2005, 04:05:17 PM EDT
|
Post #228,209
10/5/05 4:11:01 PM
|
Answers
Yes, and yes.
Yes, and yes.
Explanation: Men and women can indeed be platonic friends. That doesn't mean that the thought of sex won't surface in one mind or another, or that an awareness of the possibility won't result in them maintaining careful barriers. So to that extent, "sex enters into it". (It hopefully matters less if the guy is in a relationship. It definitely enters into it less if the guy happens to be gay...) I've been in this situation.
As for the romantic relationship ending and winding up as friends, I know it is possible because I know several cases where it happened. It has never happened to me, but I have multiple siblings who wound up being good friends with ex-spouses!
But I wouldn't count on either happening in any particular case. If it does, well and good. But normally a broken romantic relationship turns ugly. And frequently women who use the phrase "platonic friends" are describing relationships where she decided to be friends and he would like to be something more. Pretending that you're platonic when the other person is longing for something else just drags out the misery - the kindest thing IMO in this situation is to exit the friendship.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,211
10/5/05 4:12:03 PM
|
Re: Questions-
Think Drew's given one of the briefer summaries I've seen in a while - that covers one of the more useful angles.
But let's face 'it' - we are living within a culture that is, simply ~ clinically insane about most body-related functions. (Oblig: follow, a mere stone's throw {and there were many thrown} back to our Roots: the psychotic Puritans.)
No wonder there are entire cities of libraries full of ruminations on ~ What we *Ought* to Do - cha. cha. cha. And one of those once-clever dichotomies referred to Inner- and Other- 'directed' personalities. That was good for a giggle too (and some PhDs. And all those books.)
And that's just One so-called 'model'. So we won't get very far in the analysis paralysis racket {or raquet} Here - right? Some folks like to parse multiple 'models' - and imagine that the algebraic sum is some sorta mini-Truth. Moi? I join children everywhere who say- as re broccoli: It's spinach! and ta hell with it!
So I conclude: cui bono? (Who profits?) and its corollary cui [whatever] -- who is harmed? And that's about the simplest chestnut within our hilarious Word of Duality ~~ as dances trippingly to mind :-)
Bon umm appetit!
I Who Must neverbeobeyed.
Unless one is into masochism..
|
Post #228,227
10/5/05 5:01:59 PM
|
Haven't you watched Harry Met Sally?
Billy Crystal gives a big no to that question.
I actually think its possible, with the right variety of male.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #228,245
10/5/05 6:02:56 PM
|
Answers
Men and women can be platonic friends. I can't imagine my life without my male friends. Our relationships are about the soul, not so much the body. It's all about connecting to a kindred spirit. My friendships are different from my relationship with my husband. They give me dimension, which is important to me.
I don't really have any former lovers. They are all current! Ha Ha! I keed! I keed!
Seriously though, it is possible to be friends with a former lover.
If you truly loved him, then you will be happy for him if he finds his soul-mate. Just don't try to make him change his mind that you are "the one" so he'll sleep with you. He doesn't want that kind of pressure.
If it wasn't about love, then you don't care who he sleeps with. As long as you still want to go to the ballgame with him, then you are best buds in his book. Especially if you buy the first round of beer. :-D
Now, if he is still hooked on you and you broke his heart, all bets are off WRT being "just friends". He will drive you crazy trying to make you change your mind and sleep with him again. You don't need that kind of pressure.
Venus and Mars...HA!
Amy
Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly!
|
Post #228,261
10/5/05 7:12:04 PM
|
Well, having done it 4 or 5 times - maybe more . . .
. . I can say definitely it can be done. The women I have shared a bed with are my family and they come and go in my life. I do not resent their leaving and maintain contact where I can.
Of course, if the breakup is not by mutual agreement, the person left needs a confident self image to do this. Dependent or needy people tend to get rather vindictive over this sort of thing.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #228,288
10/5/05 9:26:31 PM
10/5/05 11:25:59 PM
|
Here's one opinion
[link|http://www.comics.com//comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20050911.html|http://www.comics.co...rls-20050911.html]
I'll post mine tomorrow... going to bed early tonight.
Brenda
Edit: changed sentence.
"I'll rock the darn boat all I want to, and if it's meant to stay afloat, then it will. If not, then we'll just all go down with the bloody ship!"
Edited by Nightowl
Oct. 5, 2005, 11:25:59 PM EDT
|
Post #228,305
10/5/05 10:31:50 PM
|
It's hard to divide affections.
No, sex doesn't always have to enter into friendships between men and women. Take [link|http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067185/|Harold and Maude], for instance. ;-) If you have a romantic relationship with someone and it ends, can you continue on as "just friends"? Is that even possible? It's pretty rare, I think. It's hard to divide affections. "Romantic relationships" generally have a lot of emotional baggage (for want of a better word) with them. If the romance ends, I think one usually wants to move on or put sufficient emotional distance between the other person so that romance is possible with someone else. (This is one of the reasons why dating co-workers is generally not a good idea.) Another issue is that often (usually?) in dating relationships that break up, the affection is stronger on one end than the other. That makes it even more difficult to continue the relationship in a platonic way as equals or even "just friends". If it's a relationship between emotional equals, and both agree on how the relationship should go, then "just friends" can work. But it's pretty rare, I think. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #228,307
10/5/05 10:36:06 PM
|
Harold did Maude
Don't you remember? That was what turned Harold's life around.
Ah,CRS. The bane of all existence!
Peace,
Amy
Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly!
|
Post #228,309
10/5/05 10:38:27 PM
|
I've not seen the movie in its entirety. It's on The List.
|
Post #228,319
10/5/05 10:48:47 PM
|
It's a great flick.
My son was behaving in a very fatalistic manner, so I rented it for his sake recently. Now, I'm not condoning that he sleep with someone 30+ years older than he, but the message of living for the day came through. He at least now is glad to be alive and is not so depressing all the time. Come to think of it, he was doing a bang-up Marvin the robot impression.
Oh, the phases that teens go through.
Om help us!
Peace,
Amy
Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly!
|
Post #228,370
10/6/05 9:13:22 AM
|
Thanks for the feedback
I went out to lunch with the girls yesterday and this was the topic of a heated discussion. It's interesting to get some different points of view on this topic, especially from such a fine panel of experts like yourselves. :-P
I've had situations go both way. After my divorce I slept with one of my great male friends. It was awesome sex, but our friendship was greater, so that was the end of that. We satisfied our curiosity and moved on. Other attempts to satisfy curiosity have not been so fortuitous. It's all very interesting.
\t
Why does sex have such power? Or is it not the sex itself, but the significance you attach to it?
I think if ya got a man and and a woman who like each other, there's always gonna be sparks. I guess it's what you do about that sparks that matters.
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,381
10/6/05 9:38:24 AM
|
I don't think it does have such power
Like I said, it depends on what else you had going for each other. My male friends, the friendship has nothing to do with sex. Never will. In your example, your friendship wasn't just about the sex. So when you had it, then stopped, you still had the friendship.
Any relationship that you wouldn't have if it weren't for the sex -- or the possibility of sex -- will not survive a breakup. What would you talk about?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,388
10/6/05 10:45:59 AM
|
I'll disagree with Drew
And my guess as to the reason is simple biology. Those who do not sometimes intertwine sex and a mess of emotion are less successful at arranging for kids to have a good caregiving situation.
But on the flip side, were it not for the same biology, sex would not be so fun. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #228,397
10/6/05 11:40:09 AM
|
Remember, I prefaced everything with "when I was single"
None of this applies, now that I am happily married and don't think about other women that way.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,399
10/6/05 11:41:01 AM
|
That sounds like the CYA clause
you're going to use to avoid trouble with the wiff when she reads this. ;)
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #228,403
10/6/05 11:48:12 AM
|
She doesn't read this
But yes, yes it is.
Actually, though, everything I said is generally true IMO of most guys who haven't yet found a real romantic relationship. To me, one of the key indicators that yes, this one might be serious, is that you don't notice other women quite so much any more. Of course you still look, I mean that's what eyes are for innit?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,419
10/6/05 12:57:25 PM
|
No. Eyes are for ...
gouging out when you get married.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheySELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0;\n\n0 rows returned.
|
Post #228,427
10/6/05 1:52:52 PM
|
Another thought
Next time you talk to "the girls", ask them which of their male friends (that they're not sleeping with) is the most attractive. If they have an answer, or even stop to think about it, they've noticed the naughty bits.
<gross_generalization>Women notice an attractive man just as much as men notice an attractive woman. But if men admit it, we're accused of wanting to sleep with her. Which we do, but that's not the point.</gross_generalization>
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,431
10/6/05 2:12:17 PM
|
As long as we're on gross generalizations . . . .
What women find most attractive in a man is evidence of wealth and a propensity to spend it unwisely. This is why a Porsche is such an effective attractor.
I notice in my age group the phrase "economically secure" and similar crude euphamisms are no longer used in singles ads. The universal ploy is now listing "Travel" as a most important interest, clearly implying that an acceptable man has plenty of leasure time and plenty of money.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #228,434
10/6/05 2:27:59 PM
|
Want honesty? Check out the Russian Bride sites
Forget "likes travel" or "financially secure". These girls either haven't learned euphamism in English yet, or they just don't care. They want someone who's "generous".
Don't ask me how I know this.
Okay, since I know you'll ask, I work with a guy who's recently divorced.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,436
10/6/05 2:30:24 PM
|
Oh, when they say "generous" I assume they mean FAT
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #228,447
10/6/05 3:08:51 PM
|
Havn't checked out any sites, but . . .
. . I've received a few emails. "Agency" teaches them that American men are just tired of dealing with American women and are looking for a woman who's obedient, worshipful, supportive and tolerant of abuse.
Their letters follow a set formula and sometimes it's pretty funny. The most recent one I received was one from an actually very attractive lady telling me that all she wants is to cook and keep house and keep her man happy. Then you read the fine print. She's got two engineering degrees and a strong background managing serious scale civil engineering and utility projects. Ummmmm . . . cooking and vacuuming, Yeah?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #228,451
10/6/05 3:23:23 PM
|
Go for that one
When she shows up, tell her, "Look, I know you want a career, and frankly i'd get bored with a glorified maid anyway. Take me as I am and don't fool around and I'll treat you as an equal." Nothing wrong with both of you exceeding expectations.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,442
10/6/05 2:55:13 PM
|
I cant dispute your experiences
But honestly Andrew, we're not all like that!
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,450
10/6/05 3:23:06 PM
|
Actually, my experiences aren't like that . . .
. . because women like that obviously won't have anything to do with me - I'm comfortable living below my means.
The exceptions do, however, prove the rule (proper meaning of the phrase: prove = test, as in a proof house that tests guns, not as in a mathematical proof). In real life the exceptions are pretty common, but in singles ads they are very rare.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #228,546
10/6/05 11:06:32 PM
|
Nicole's personal ad must be like that.
[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4317536.stm|Nicole traveled from South Africa to Australia and back in 9 months].
Wow!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #228,441
10/6/05 2:52:23 PM
|
The "girls" are a bunch of therapists
so we cant discuss anything without analyzing it to death from several different angles. But heck yeah, we talk about our male friends and which celebrities we'd like to bed. But grossly generalizing, it's not a man's naught bits that catch our attention. We dont run around saying "did you see that guy's package?!" It's more his face, his eyes, his smile.. things like that. Our fantasies involve him staring into our eyes and taking us lovingly in his arms before the banging commences.
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,452
10/6/05 3:23:50 PM
|
So why do you expect to find a man who *doesn't* notice?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,459
10/6/05 3:46:00 PM
|
I dont.
I never said I did. I'm simply posing questions and mulling over your answers.
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,466
10/6/05 4:16:48 PM
|
Okay, maybe you don't want it
But [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=228394|this]: I'm talking no fantasies, no fleeting thoughts, no appreciation of her mammaries, rear end or other naughty bits. No desire. No curiosity. says you're interested in the possibility. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #228,467
10/6/05 4:19:48 PM
|
No it doesnt
I'm only questioning if such a beast exists.
Quit over analyzing things. That's my job.
Jesus was a star last week.
Now he's tending bar on Melrose.
Welcome to Hollywood.
|
Post #228,468
10/6/05 4:21:49 PM
|
You obviously don't understand DrewK's role here.
He over analyzes everything. That is why he is in QA.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheySELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0;\n\n0 rows returned.
|
Post #228,474
10/6/05 4:26:38 PM
|
No... no, that is definitely Drew's job.
I believe he has a wider scope of analization*, however.
* Yes, the spelling is intentional.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #228,470
10/6/05 4:24:25 PM
|
So then eyes, etc, ARE the "naughty bits" for your gang.
|
Post #228,479
10/6/05 4:30:59 PM
|
The voice, don't forget the voice!
That's a biggie too, doncha think, girls?
Since when is a voice a naughty bit? Or eyes?
We are just more intuitive, that's all.
Peace,
Amy
Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly!
|
Post #228,500
10/6/05 6:36:32 PM
|
stealth sex
a couple of times when I was single we would be discussing politics, civilization, music, the arts and then I would here a gasp "hey! I hope you're wearing a rubber!"
he,
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #228,628
10/7/05 12:34:22 PM
|
Diet Coke through the nose!
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #228,445
10/6/05 3:05:36 PM
10/6/05 3:09:31 PM
|
Here's my take
I am friends with many guys, in fact, that's how I started life, playing with the neighborhood boys. I didn't have actual girlfriends until I was nearly 8 years old.
Today I am still friends in a platonic manner with many guys, for many reasons. Bill, my bagpiper friend from High School, who taught me to play chess, for example, is strictly a friend and there was never more there. In fact, he asked for his file one day (I keep files of correspondence and such from everyone important in my life), and he wrote "Absolutely no Fucking" on the front. Heheh! He wanted to make sure we knew what page we were on, and it had never entered into my mind with him.
Andrew, I met at volleyball in the 90's and we were always just friends. He was the one who gave me free computers, and fixed them etc., before he moved to Texas. He is the one person I know who would've been brave enough to have soldered a battery onto Katie's motherboard. But I digress.
These are examples, (and only two), of actual male friends that I share honest platonic relationships with.
As for the romance/sex aspect, I don't know about sex, having never had any with anyone other than John, but I can speak on romance and possibly sexuality, as well.
I had a dear friend named Jay, I was friends with him a long time from the Dr. Who club. He went into the service and called me monthly, and when he returned, he was engaged. I helped him get a house together while he waited to bring his bride over from France, and then on the Fourth Of July in 1987 he kissed me. It was shocking, but it was the first time I'd ever felt anything real about a kiss. We determined we were in love, and probably always had been and didn't know it.
We determined to remain friends. But it didn't work out for some time. In fact, we didn't rekindle our friendship until he was divorced, and I was engaged to R. That was tricky, because he still felt love, and so did I, despite trying not to, so I had to really be careful not to let that get acted upon. When R left, for the first time Jay and I were free to explore our relationship, but you know what? I'd finally fallen out of love with him. It took 16 years, but I had. But he hadn't. Regardless, the bottom line is that we tried to remain friends, but it was always touchy. You always wondered what was he thinking about, and were on guard. He got married again, and so did I. We're still friends, but it's still touchy... and I would never be alone with him ever, because I don't trust him to not act upon his feelings.
So to answer your question, yes, it's possible to have purely platonic friends where sex/romance never even enters into your mind (at least it never did with me where Bill and Andrew and many others were concerned), but it's trickier to stay friends with someone when there ever was love involved.
As for a crush, that's a little different too. There's a guy from college who still wishes we had been something back then. He calls now and then, he has a kid, and is divorced, etc. We're friends, but again, I would never be alone with him because he often wishes we had worked out. I never dated him, by the way, he just grabbed me in a car and kissed me, and well, freaked me out good. That was the extent of the "romance." He of course sees it much differently.
So each situation is different. If you have interests that are non-romantic and you build on those with the friend of the opposite sex, the friendship has a chance. If it was built on any kind of romantic spark, I'd have to say it's iffy.
Brenda
Edit: On another note, that's probably why I feel so comfortable on IWT, it's predominantly male. :)
"I'll rock the darn boat all I want to, and if it's meant to stay afloat, then it will. If not, then we'll just all go down with the bloody ship!"
Edited by Nightowl
Oct. 6, 2005, 03:09:31 PM EDT
|
Post #228,566
10/7/05 1:21:50 AM
|
Re: Questions-
To the first: absolutely. Men and women can care very deeply about one another without the need for romance or handling of/fantasizing about each other's naughty bits, and in fact some of the most rewarding friendships I have are of that very nature. \r\n\r\n To the second: I think it can happen, but it depends a lot on the circumstances under which the romance ended, and on the emotional maturity of both sides. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
|
Post #228,588
10/7/05 6:31:45 AM
|
So, did he pass the test?
|
