7 ms·

As a male with more close female confidants/friends than male, I find it interesting that this article in no way acknowledged the possibility of a platonic male

As a male with more close female confidants/friends than male, I find it interesting that this article in no way acknowledged the possibility of a platonic male/female friendship.

cperciva 12y ago
Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
- reinhardt 12y ago
  Unless there's no sexual attraction, preferably mutual. I for one don't consider every (or even most) women to be fuckable.
- cdr 12y ago
  I really hope I'm missing some sarcasm there.
  - cperciva 12y ago
    It was a quote from 'When Harry met Sally', but a study recently backed it up: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant...
    - cdr 12y ago
      176 teenagers... what an impressive study.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - ama729 12y ago
      > but a study recently backed it up Except it ... doesn't? Not only it doesn't seem to be a well designed study (the 9 point scale doesn't make much sense, there is no graph with the numbers for each answers, etc), the conclusion they get from it seem strange, since most people don't want to go on a date: On average: Male: 4.55 Female: 3.90, since it's a 9 point scale[1]: 5 mean "Neutral/Unsure" and below is the "no" range. [1]https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_considerres22.png?w=450 https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_...
    - vacri 12y ago
      A study on the gender interactions of undergraduate students really shouldn't be used to describe the wider population. They're in a very artificial environment, in a tumultuous phrase of life.
- icebraining 12y ago
  What an heteronormative thing to say.
  - theorique 12y ago
    How about: "straight men and straight women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way". Better now?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It was mostly a friendly jab, not a real criticism. I don't think I can ever use the word "heteronormative" in a completely serious way.
      - theorique 12y ago
        Well, it's technically correct. The sense I get is that most people aim their "generic" comments at the 95% (straight, cis, etc). Because reality, in a statistical sense, is heteronormative. But being inclusive is kind as well. There's no exact answer - if you are 100% inclusive, people scoff at you being "politically correct". If you're not, different people get offended.
        aestra 12y ago
        It is more like aiming generic comments at a subset of the population makes that subset "normal" and the other "abnormal" and one must conform to the "normal." I always hate it when people say "women do this" or "women think this" because I often don't do or think that. Plus within the women I know there is a large range of personalities, actions, thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. It reduces women down to a stereotype.
    - nzp 12y ago
      No, not really. What about same sex friendships in homosexual men and women? Why would we single out hetero sexuality? As I said in my comment to Colin's post, no one ever makes such a statement for homosexual relations.
- nzp 12y ago
  But the thing is, why is this considered a problem really? Should we only have sex with our enemies or persons we don't like? I understand the underlying reasoning, the questions are for the most part rhetorical, but I just don't find the whole idea very well thought out, not to mention it's completely wrong in the "always" part. Also, I never heard people say gay men or lesbians can never be friends. Why is that? Is there some bogus assumption that hetero sexuality is somehow different in nature? The point is that the "sex part" does not have to get in the way. In most cases the sex part is very superficial, it's just an idea that comes naturally to peoples minds and it's simply not a big deal at all. People, men and women, think about sex (almost all the time, both sexes) and worthless semi random thoughts about sex with almost any person will be had. It simply is not such a big deal. The funny thing is that we are all aware of the universality and banality of these thoughts, yet act as though it's something special, extraordinary and serious. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating promiscuity (although, again to be clear, I have no moral issue with that as long as it's honest), but simply putting the whole thing to rest, it's not even worth talking about. And it better not be true that sex stands in the way of friendship because long, commited, beautiful relationships sure involve a lot of sex and deep friendship. Sex can only stand in the way of friendship if all one wants is sex.

As a male with more close female confidants/friends than male, I find it interesting that this article in no way acknowledged the possibility of a platonic male/female friendship.

cperciva 12y ago

Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.

reinhardt 12y ago
Unless there's no sexual attraction, preferably mutual. I for one don't consider every (or even most) women to be fuckable.
cdr 12y ago
I really hope I'm missing some sarcasm there.
- cperciva 12y ago
  It was a quote from 'When Harry met Sally', but a study recently backed it up: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant...
  - cdr 12y ago
    176 teenagers... what an impressive study.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - ama729 12y ago
    > but a study recently backed it up Except it ... doesn't? Not only it doesn't seem to be a well designed study (the 9 point scale doesn't make much sense, there is no graph with the numbers for each answers, etc), the conclusion they get from it seem strange, since most people don't want to go on a date: On average: Male: 4.55 Female: 3.90, since it's a 9 point scale[1]: 5 mean "Neutral/Unsure" and below is the "no" range. [1]https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_considerres22.png?w=450 https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_...
  - vacri 12y ago
    A study on the gender interactions of undergraduate students really shouldn't be used to describe the wider population. They're in a very artificial environment, in a tumultuous phrase of life.
icebraining 12y ago
What an heteronormative thing to say.
- theorique 12y ago
  How about: "straight men and straight women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way". Better now?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It was mostly a friendly jab, not a real criticism. I don't think I can ever use the word "heteronormative" in a completely serious way.
    - theorique 12y ago
      Well, it's technically correct. The sense I get is that most people aim their "generic" comments at the 95% (straight, cis, etc). Because reality, in a statistical sense, is heteronormative. But being inclusive is kind as well. There's no exact answer - if you are 100% inclusive, people scoff at you being "politically correct". If you're not, different people get offended.
      - aestra 12y ago
        It is more like aiming generic comments at a subset of the population makes that subset "normal" and the other "abnormal" and one must conform to the "normal." I always hate it when people say "women do this" or "women think this" because I often don't do or think that. Plus within the women I know there is a large range of personalities, actions, thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. It reduces women down to a stereotype.
  - nzp 12y ago
    No, not really. What about same sex friendships in homosexual men and women? Why would we single out hetero sexuality? As I said in my comment to Colin's post, no one ever makes such a statement for homosexual relations.
nzp 12y ago
But the thing is, why is this considered a problem really? Should we only have sex with our enemies or persons we don't like? I understand the underlying reasoning, the questions are for the most part rhetorical, but I just don't find the whole idea very well thought out, not to mention it's completely wrong in the "always" part. Also, I never heard people say gay men or lesbians can never be friends. Why is that? Is there some bogus assumption that hetero sexuality is somehow different in nature? The point is that the "sex part" does not have to get in the way. In most cases the sex part is very superficial, it's just an idea that comes naturally to peoples minds and it's simply not a big deal at all. People, men and women, think about sex (almost all the time, both sexes) and worthless semi random thoughts about sex with almost any person will be had. It simply is not such a big deal. The funny thing is that we are all aware of the universality and banality of these thoughts, yet act as though it's something special, extraordinary and serious. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating promiscuity (although, again to be clear, I have no moral issue with that as long as it's honest), but simply putting the whole thing to rest, it's not even worth talking about. And it better not be true that sex stands in the way of friendship because long, commited, beautiful relationships sure involve a lot of sex and deep friendship. Sex can only stand in the way of friendship if all one wants is sex.