Is It Overprotective to Limit a Partner's Friendships?

[DanP]

Can't or can? Can agrees with the context, but can't looks more like the word in question.

"can". Typo

 

[Huckleberry]

I do not mean "sexual intent" if you mean an intention to have sex with the person, just perceiving the person in a sexual context. Obviously if you are friends with anyone you are "attracted" to them. The only difference is when that person is of the gender you prefer you may perceive them sexually which will colour your attraction.

The first time someone told me about this idea I first thought it was silly but as I thought about it I realized that I was definitely attracted to the majority of my female friends and that I was not really sure if those I was not attracted to might be attracted to me. I even found out recently that a gay friend of mine from high school had a crush on me. I see it everywhere. I have had several people tell me that they have utterly "platonic" relationships but in every case where I actually knew the person to whom they referred I knew it was not true. The only exceptions I have found have been relationships that were 'cemented' over long periods of time or influenced by cultural norms (such as family* and cases of large age differences).

* a cousin of mine and I had huge crushes on each other when we were younger but got over it because we were cousins. We eventually confessed to one another and then found out a few years later that we are not even blood related. :-/

I don't know. This hypothesis doesn't seem to fit my experience. Ignore expectations while respecting boundaries and platonic friendships seem easy. It's not worth investing the energy into a relationship hoping it will become sexual when there is no indication that the other person is interested. Save the energy for someone who is interested. There are other choices besides infatuation or homosexuality.

It's not the warning shot that ends the friendship. It's when the friendship is used as a hostage that it gets sunk with the infatuation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is it unfair to expect the boyfriend not to take action against this intruder?

Perhaps the ideal course of action is not to restrict the girlfriend in this situation. Perhaps the ideal course is to make this new guy wish he'd never seen her.

Yeah, the Geiko approach to romance. You can pick any girl you want, beat up any guy who shows interest, and eventually she'll be so intimidated she'll stick with you. It could work. Or you could end up in jail. Or beaten up yourself. In any event, the fact you want her means anyone elses wishes are irrelevant. So easy even a cave man can understand it.

The problem, if it even is a problem, arose here because Mentallic doesn't understand his girlfriend. She's hanging around with this other guy because she can manifest a side of herself to him that Mentallic doesn't recognize or know how to address.

I say "if it even is a problem" because I'm not persuaded the girlfriend has any sexual interest in the other guy. She's undoubtedly primarily interested in being able to relax and talk to him in a way she can't with Mentallic. As others have warned, Mentallic's jealous behavior is the worst threat to his relationship.

My own experience is that, when I had the equanimity to give my girlfriends wide space to be friends with all other guys, they always came back to me. When I felt possessive and jealous, it drove them away. It's a trivial Chinese Finger puzzle situation.

Cavemen have a hard time with this, but the question to ask yourself if your girl seems to be enjoying a warm, intimate conversation with another guy is "What is he doing right that I am not doing?"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't know. This hypothesis doesn't seem to fit my experience. Ignore expectations while respecting boundaries and platonic friendships seem easy. It's not worth investing the energy into a relationship hoping it will become sexual when there is no indication that the other person is interested. Save the energy for someone who is interested. There are other choices besides infatuation or homosexuality.

It's not the warning shot that ends the friendship. It's when the friendship is used as a hostage that it gets sunk with the infatuation.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. I am saying that people are attracted to one another. When people are friends it is most likely because they are attracted to one another. It doesn't mean anything, attraction is natural. I think that the only real problem with a man and woman being friends is that most people do not know how to maturely handle sex and sexual attraction. Being sexually attracted to someone does not necessitate attempts to have sex with the person and being friends with someone should not make you put your head in the sand and pretend like everything is perfectly chaste and pure between you two, that neither of you could possibly ever even think of the other in such a manner. It is naive and immature to pretend like people do not have libidos, and it is very likely this sort of mentality of ignoring such elements in a relationship that make it difficult for males and females to be friends. I am not saying that men and women who are friends are just waiting for a chance to jump each other. I have had plenty of female friends, most of them I was attracted to, I never felt the need to try to get in their pants (though it may have happened once or twice).

 

[Mentallic]

She's undoubtedly primarily interested in being able to relax and talk to him in a way she can't with Mentallic.

Yes she can talk to him in a way that she can't with me because of my disinterest for her taste in music and clothing. She can do the same with her other friends as well, and she does. That is what friends do...
But you make it sound as though I'm so controlling of her every-day actions that I have her chained up in the basement. This was the first time I went off in such a way in front of her, by which point this guy was already knee deep in her life. And since me and her share so much, as consequence, he is effectively a part of my life as well. And since I don't like it, I felt no choice but to tell him to back off.

My own experience is that, when I had the equanimity to give my girlfriends wide space to be friends with all other guys, they always came back to me. When I felt possessive and jealous, it drove them away. It's a trivial Chinese Finger puzzle situation.

And what about the third possibility that you let her be friends with a guy that's attempting to steal her from you? The hope is that she'll follow the same pattern and still come back...

 

[magpies]

They say if you love something set it free :)

 

[DanP]

Cavemen have a hard time with this, but the question to ask yourself if your girl seems to be enjoying a warm, intimate conversation with another guy is "What is he doing right that I am not doing?"

Actually, no you don't to this. If your women has a repeatedly intimate conversations with a man, and this bothers you, you simply tell her nicely that you do not consider her behavior appropriate. If she choose to ignore this, you leave her. Never stay in a relation where you are unhappy and causes you major emotional turmoils. Life is too short for such non-sense.

 

[DanP]

And since me and her share so much, as consequence, he is effectively a part of my life as well. And since I don't like it, I felt no choice but to tell him to back off.

Mentallic, let me try to make it simple for you.

1. You never let yourself again so controlled by events that you lower yourself again to check her phone, her life and this like this.

2. You tell her nicely what you consider is a good/healthy relationship and ask her if you too can make it work.

3. If she believes that you are wrong and she should continue what she does despite the fact it causes issues to you and hurts her relationship with you, you leave her. No drama, no
guilt assigning. Just leave, and don't look back. She doesn't care enough about you anyway to negotiate the relation, so it doesn't worth wasting your time with her. Relation gone south doesn't worth to be "saved".

Of course, you must do what you consider to be the proper course of action, not what any of us tell you.

 

[magpies]

Ya but good luck finding a better woman after...

 

[DanP]

Yeah, the Geiko approach to romance. You can pick any girl you want, beat up any guy who shows interest, and eventually she'll be so intimidated she'll stick with you. It could work. Or you could end up in jail. Or beaten up yourself. In any event, the fact you want her means anyone elses wishes are irrelevant. So easy even a cave man can understand it.

Actually, there is a fine border between aggression and assertiveness. Sitting like a kitty and taking all the **** is not good, nor is to let events transform you into a drama queen who checks phones records, phone bills, e-mails and make an all around emo circus.

But there is nothing bad in telling a 3rd party to back off. Pretty firmly for that matter. There is nothing bad in being assertive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes she can talk to him in a way that she can't with me because of my disinterest for her taste in music and clothing. She can do the same with her other friends as well, and she does. That is what friends do...

I don't think it's the music and clothing per se. Those things are always outward manifestations of a whole inner attitude, and it is your disinterest in that inner something that would make her go elsewhere for stimulation.

It is not a failing on your part that you don't automatically overlap with her on all matters. But the fact she's going elsewhere to be that side of herself is causing you distress. I think you have two choices: laissez faire, or, do some serious studying up on what it is this guy allows her to be and take on that role yourself.

But you make it sound as though I'm so controlling of her every-day actions that I have her chained up in the basement. This was the first time I went off in such a way in front of her, by which point this guy was already knee deep in her life. And since me and her share so much, as consequence, he is effectively a part of my life as well. And since I don't like it, I felt no choice but to tell him to back off.

My tone was aimed at Char Limit, not you. He was suggesting a good solution would be to get really heavy handed with the other guy.

And what about the third possibility that you let her be friends with a guy that's attempting to steal her from you? The hope is that she'll follow the same pattern and still come back...

I've had experience both with getting very jealous and feeling a high level of equanimity. The equanimity always worked vastly better. The jealousy never worked.

Equanimity has to be sincere. It's not something you can "try" or fake. You really have to arrive at a state of mind where you can calmly let the girl go if she decides she wants to go.

I always feel there's a big side and a small side to my feelings for a woman. The small side is my purely selfish need for the way they make me feel: validating me as a man, soothing my ego, being my trophy. The big side is the altruistic, unselfish side: admiration for them as a person, a kind of rejoicing when they seem to be flourishing, pride when they accomplish something, sadness when things go wrong for them.

I've often had to take stock, put the small side at arms length, and look at the whole situation from a big side perspective and realize that, I, myself, am sometimes the reason this person can't flourish. I am not the right person to stimulate some vein of interest that's important to them and I might be diminishing them by squelching their every attempt to grow along those lines with dismissive remarks and changing the subject. Additionally, I might be stunting their emotional life by forcing everything to take place in terms I can handle, that I'm comfortable with.

Seeing a girlfriend having a warm, fluent, animated conversation with another guy is a sure symptom of this. That guy often looks like a devious snake in the tree offering her sweet fruit, but the truth is he's merely very relaxed, non-judgemental, and enjoying the conversation for whatever transitory pleasures he might get out of it. He's not steering the conversation away from her music, or any subject, just letting it all wash over him.

You, the boyfriend, see that happening and the blood may come to your face and you feel like punching him in the nose. Alternately, in a moment of big side detachment you may realize that what's important here is that there's a whole side to her that you have not seen, not encouraged, not realized. And that it's attractive.

So, when I have the presence of mind and equanimity, I let my girlfriends hang out with anyone they want, whenever they want, partly because I would feel rotten if I were the one who was stifling them, and partly because they return to me more alive because they feel attractive and interesting.

Every time I've reacted to a new girlfriend with possessive jealousy it ended up aborting the relationship really quickly. They just picked up and left. I never crossed any lines, either, just verbally expressed my anguish over them paying too much attention to other guys right in front of me, or just that they didn't spend enough time with me. No yelling or arguing, just a low key revelation that I had become a mass of needy insecurity.

I think the reason the ones I gave free reign always stuck with me was because my detachment, equanimity read as solid confidence in myself and super-security. Girls love that. The fact of the matter is 100% of the guys they hung out with were trying to steal them away. I know this because they would come back and give me detailed reports of various things the guys tried and said, sometimes very good attempts, sometimes "That Final Awkward Moment" stories. We'd laugh together about it, and I always felt privy to real inside information about what it must be like to be a woman and get hit on all the time from every angle. These stories always held me rapt, and they're some of my best memories. It was where they stopped being my "girlfriend" and became my best friend, telling me about wonderful adventures I couldn't possibly participate in myself.

I really believe most girls do not like promiscuity and will go far not to cheat in sex. Promiscuous girls, and there are some, all have something psychologically wrong with them which causes behavior that is outside the norm for females. This is hard for men to grasp because men are hardwired to be promiscuous. We project our own proclivities onto women, when the fact is they actually don't much have those proclivities. Generally speaking, once a girl starts to have sex with a guy, she want to limit herself to only having sex with that guy. She may see 40 guys a day who sexually excite her but she'll stick pretty rigidly to the guy she's invested in when it comes to actually having sex. That's why when this guy said you were foolish to get upset because you'd already "won", he was pretty much right. If she had a promiscuous streak, you'd know it by now. Since she doesn't, it is, as a rule of thumb at least, going to be a lot harder for any man to get her to cheat on you sexually than you imagine.

Regardless, there is always the chance she won't come back or will cheat on you. Having equanimity means you're psychologically prepared for that; being in a state of mind where that's not going to shatter your world.

That may seem absurd, I don't know, but I think what you might need to appreciate it would be to be on the receiving end of relationship where the girl was jealous of you, keeping track of all your moves, always hovering, checking your facebook all the time, calling you every ten minutes, going purple in the face when you looked at other girls, etc. A good dose of that and you'd be way more lenient in all future relationships.

Bottom line is jealously doesn't work, and you feel like crap on top of it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But there is nothing bad in telling a 3rd party to back off. Pretty firmly for that matter. There is nothing bad in being assertive.

This is the right thing to do in one circumstance only: when it's what the girl is hoping you'll do. Sometimes a girl deliberately tries to get you jealous because she thinks you're not paying enough attention to her. In that case an 'assertive' response would work.

 

[DanP]

This is the right thing to do in one circumstance only: when it's what the girl is hoping you'll do. Sometimes a girl deliberately tries to get you jealous because she thinks you're not paying enough attention to her. In that case an 'assertive' response would work.

Not really. Being assertive is never a bad thing. It's an essential social skill. An essential negotiation skill. Humans who don't posses it have big problems in communication and making things happen. It lies in a continuum ranging from submission to passivity,assertivity and finally aggression.

It's not so important that your current relation work out. It's important to find out early if it the relation works for both of you. If not, well, there will be others.

 

[rewebster]

Yes she can talk to him in a way that she can't with me because of my disinterest for her taste in music and clothing. She can do the same with her other friends as well, and she does. That is what friends do...

Often the more interests are in common, the more people want to be around each other. If you don't like her music and her taste in cloths, I see that could be a problem.

Those things often are a big part of girl's identity at that age, and if you have said you don't like them, it may be interpreted by her that you don't like her as a whole person.

Other things may have been the first 'attractions'; but, if there are more and more 'differences' that come up and are not worked out together, things tend to fall apart.

How long have you two been an 'item/together' ?

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. I am saying that people are attracted to one another. When people are friends it is most likely because they are attracted to one another. It doesn't mean anything, attraction is natural. I think that the only real problem with a man and woman being friends is that most people do not know how to maturely handle sex and sexual attraction. Being sexually attracted to someone does not necessitate attempts to have sex with the person and being friends with someone should not make you put your head in the sand and pretend like everything is perfectly chaste and pure between you two, that neither of you could possibly ever even think of the other in such a manner. It is naive and immature to pretend like people do not have libidos, and it is very likely this sort of mentality of ignoring such elements in a relationship that make it difficult for males and females to be friends. I am not saying that men and women who are friends are just waiting for a chance to jump each other. I have had plenty of female friends, most of them I was attracted to, I never felt the need to try to get in their pants (though it may have happened once or twice).

(edit- bold added for emphasis.)

I have female friends that I am sexually attracted to and ones that I am not. I don't understand why sexual attraction makes a friendship more desirable if there is no intent of ever having sex, or why a friendship with someone one does not consider sexually attractive is less desirable. I agree that attraction is natural, but without sexual intent what is the purpose of filtering friends according to how sexually attractive they are? Contrary to your assumption that it doesn't mean anything, I assume the purpose of only selecting sexually attractive people for friendship is to try to win their affection in some way; an expectation of sex at some point in the relationship, or the cultivation of a personal sexual fantasy. I find those expectations create a palpable awkwardness that is detrimental to the friendship if the other person isn't interested. It's the elephant in the room every time someone mentions anything remotely sexual.

If there is no sexual component to the attraction then I don't understand what attraction has to do with platonic male/female relationships as opposed to a platonic relationship between any two people. Of course people are attracted to their friends.

 

[rewebster]

(edit- bold added for emphasis.)

I have female friends that I am sexually attracted to and ones that I am not. I don't understand why sexual attraction makes a friendship more desirable if there is no intent of ever having sex, or why a friendship with someone one does not consider sexually attractive is less desirable. I agree that attraction is natural, but without sexual intent what is the purpose of filtering friends according to how sexually attractive they are? Contrary to your assumption that it doesn't mean anything, I assume the purpose of only selecting sexually attractive people for friendship is to try to win their affection in some way; an expectation of sex at some point in the relationship, or the cultivation of a personal sexual fantasy. I find those expectations create a palpable awkwardness that is detrimental to the friendship if the other person isn't interested. It's the elephant in the room every time someone mentions anything remotely sexual.

If there is no sexual component to the attraction then I don't understand what attraction has to do with platonic male/female relationships as opposed to a platonic relationship between any two people. Of course people are attracted to their friends.

well, there's a lot of men out there that think women=sex=they all want me, and a lot of women out there think men=they all want me=sex...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qv_dSdOSzv8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qv_dSdOSzv8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

(edit- bold added for emphasis.)

I have female friends that I am sexually attracted to and ones that I am not. I don't understand why sexual attraction makes a friendship more desirable if there is no intent of ever having sex, or why a friendship with someone one does not consider sexually attractive is less desirable. I agree that attraction is natural, but without sexual intent what is the purpose of filtering friends according to how sexually attractive they are? Contrary to your assumption that it doesn't mean anything, I assume the purpose of only selecting sexually attractive people for friendship is to try to win their affection in some way; an expectation of sex at some point in the relationship, or the cultivation of a personal sexual fantasy. I find those expectations create a palpable awkwardness that is detrimental to the friendship if the other person isn't interested. It's the elephant in the room every time someone mentions anything remotely sexual.

If there is no sexual component to the attraction then I don't understand what attraction has to do with platonic male/female relationships as opposed to a platonic relationship between any two people. Of course people are attracted to their friends.

I am not saying that people intentionally choose sexually attractive people to be friends with. I do not know why you keep reading more into what I am posting than what is there.

The likelihood is that if you see a person and desire to speak with them then you probably found that person physically attractive. If they deign to speak to you and enjoy themselves it is likely that either they found you attractive or they enjoyed the attention of an interested person. These things do not necessarily need to have happened consciously. It is quite possible that neither individual really paid much attention to why it is they enjoyed the others company, only that it was enjoyable.

Finding a person sexually attractive is not a big deal. It is only a big deal if you make it one. I see women regularly that I find sexually attractive. I do not feel any need to go after them. I probably speak to less than one percent of these women. If I do speak to them and enjoy their company I do not see that there is suddenly any reason for me to try to have sex with them or start a relationship with them. I should hope that one would hold a higher standard for whom one wishes to sleep with than that they are sexually attractive and can hold a conversation.

It would seem to be the crux of the issue of men and women feeling that they can not have 'platonic' relationships is that in most cases the 'platonic' relationship does not exist and they feel that they can not simply be friends with someone who they are attracted to or is attracted to them. Its by cultural convention that a male and female are only supposed to be friends if the relationship is platonic and so it is that many people feel this is the way their friendships ought to be. Either they deny it and pretend that neither of them has any attraction to the other (which creates tension), they hide or ignore the attraction (which creates tension), or they refuse to believe a friendship is possible (most likely due to the aforementioned sources of tension).edit: maybe I am just the most laid back horndog in the world, who knows.

 

[Huckleberry]

I am not saying that people intentionally choose sexually attractive people to be friends with. I do not know why you keep reading more into what I am posting than what is there.

The likelihood is that if you see a person and desire to speak with them then you probably found that person physically attractive. If they deign to speak to you and enjoy themselves it is likely that either they found you attractive or they enjoyed the attention of an interested person. These things do not necessarily need to have happened consciously. It is quite possible that neither individual really paid much attention to why it is they enjoyed the others company, only that it was enjoyable.

I don't think I'm reading more into it than what you're posting. I think that if people favor sexually attractive friends then, conscious or not, sexual intention exists. An intent does not have to be conscious to manifest itself in a person's behaviour. Consciously their actions may not mean anything to them, but subconsciously there is a motive driving their actions. People aren't always aware of their motives, but there are still consequences for the conscious actions that result from those subconscious motives.

Why is talking to a woman that you are not sexually interested in less enjoyable than talking to a woman you are sexually interested in, but have no intention (conscious or otherwise) of having sex with? I assume that there is a subconscious motive that benefits from contact with sexually attractive women, or perhaps benefits by avoiding sexually unattractive women. What other reason is there for preferential treatment based on sexual attractiveness? An ego boost among other men? To gain the attention of other attractive women who see a man with an attractive female friend?

Hmm, If I ever do get married my wife will likely be absolutely hideous.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It would seem to be the crux of the issue of men and women feeling that they can not have 'platonic' relationships is that in most cases the 'platonic' relationship does not exist and they feel that they can not simply be friends with someone who they are attracted to or is attracted to them. Its by cultural convention that a male and female are only supposed to be friends if the relationship is platonic and so it is that many people feel this is the way their friendships ought to be. Either they deny it and pretend that neither of them has any attraction to the other (which creates tension), they hide or ignore the attraction (which creates tension), or they refuse to believe a friendship is possible (most likely due to the aforementioned sources of tension).

Yes, it seems there is a large percentage of people who think in absolute terms: a male/female relationship has to be sexual or platonic. In fact the dichotomy is more like 1.) sexual attraction you might act on in the right circumstances, and 2.) sexual attraction you'd probably never act on.

Some people never get sucked into believing a platonic relationship can, or should, exist and most of their friendships with the opposite sex are overtly flirtatious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why is talking to a woman that you are not sexually interested in less enjoyable than talking to a woman you are sexually interested in, but have no intention (conscious or otherwise) of having sex with?

This is kind of a no-brainer, ennit? The more attractive you find the person showing interest in you, the more attractive you feel. Most of this is not about finding a sex partner per se, it's about finding where you fit in in the scheme of things.

 

[Huckleberry]

Yes, it seems there is a large percentage of people who think in absolute terms: a male/female relationship has to be sexual or platonic. In fact the dichotomy is more like 1.) sexual attraction you might act on in the right circumstances, and 2.) sexual attraction you'd probably never act on.

Some people never get sucked into believing a platonic relationship can, or should, exist and most of their friendships with the opposite sex are overtly flirtatious.

Both postulates presume sexual attraction exists. In my experience it does not always exist, but does not preclude friendship when absent. I suspect the dichotomy is more of a trichotomy. There seems to be at least one option missing.

Is there some kind of biological mandate that says any woman within child-bearing age not related to me must be considered sexually attractive as a requirement or consequence of friendship? I must be missing that because I do have relationships with women that I'm not sexually attracted to.

 

[Huckleberry]

This is kind of a no-brainer, ennit? The more attractive you find the person showing interest in you, the more attractive you feel. Most of this is not about finding a sex partner per se, it's about finding where you fit in in the scheme of things.

If I only had a brain. Finding where one fits in the scheme of things is vague. I suspect it is more like making a place where one desires to be. No, I rarely feel more attractive talking to attractive women that choose to talk to me but show no sexual interest.

edit - It's not surprising that women don't trust men's intentions. Not only do they have to worry about every man that speaks to them thinking of them sexually, which I think most women could handle, but they have to worry that if they decide to speak back then the man will assume she is sexually interested as well. I don't harbor a desire for every woman I talk to, and every woman that talks to me doesn't desire me. Maybe people who only befriend others whom they are sexually attracted to can't or shouldn't have platonic relationships. It doesn't mean that there is no possibility that others can or should. If I'm not attracted to every woman I meet then I see no reason why I can't be friends with one of them who is also not attracted to me. I'm pretty sure I do have at least one such friend. She'll be shocked when I tell her that since I don't want her body she must want mine or we can't be friends.

 

[DanP]

Consciously their actions may not mean anything to them, but subconsciously there is a motive driving their actions. People aren't always aware of their motives, but there are still consequences for the conscious actions that result from those subconscious motives.

Freud is dead and Freud was wrong.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think I'm reading more into it than what you're posting.

No?

Is there some kind of biological mandate that says any woman within child-bearing age not related to me must be considered sexually attractive as a requirement or consequence of friendship?

She'll be shocked when I tell her that since I don't want her body she must want mine or we can't be friends.

It seems you are still of the habit to at least exaggerate if nothing else.

I think that if people favor sexually attractive friends then, conscious or not, sexual intention exists. An intent does not have to be conscious to manifest itself in a person's behaviour. Consciously their actions may not mean anything to them, but subconsciously there is a motive driving their actions. People aren't always aware of their motives, but there are still consequences for the conscious actions that result from those subconscious motives.

Why is talking to a woman that you are not sexually interested in less enjoyable than talking to a woman you are sexually interested in, but have no intention (conscious or otherwise) of having sex with? I assume that there is a subconscious motive that benefits from contact with sexually attractive women, or perhaps benefits by avoiding sexually unattractive women. What other reason is there for preferential treatment based on sexual attractiveness? An ego boost among other men? To gain the attention of other attractive women who see a man with an attractive female friend?

Hmm, If I ever do get married my wife will likely be absolutely hideous.

It is hard to sift through them, and I have found none that are specifically about attractiveness and "first impressions" yet, but you can use google to find that there are several studies regarding the manner in which people are treated in correlation with their attractiveness. Here I found a pdf of an article (I do not have time to read the whole thing yet) that cites several studies in the opening showing "attractive" people tend to receive more positive attention.
And I never said that "unattractive" people would be avoided. A person may wind up in a conversation with a person whom they do not consider attractive but who is attracted to them and receive enjoyment from the interaction based on the attention they receive from the person.
The possibility that there is some biological driver pushing us to be more interested in associating with "attractive" people also does not necessitate that one actually wishes to have sex or a relationship with that person. As I said earlier, I do not feel a desire to have sex with every woman I see that I think looks attractive. Do you? Why does this change simply because the person is also interesting to speak to?

Is there some kind of biological mandate that says any woman within child-bearing age not related to me must be considered sexually attractive as a requirement or consequence of friendship? I must be missing that because I do have relationships with women that I'm not sexually attracted to.

And are you sure that they are not, and have never been, attracted to you? Have none of them ever told you that they consider you a good looking man? Remember, being attracted to a person does not necessitate that you wish to bed them or date them as you likely see plenty of women you find attractive on a daily basis and most likely do nothing about it.

If I only had a brain. Finding where one fits in the scheme of things is vague. I suspect it is more like making a place where one desires to be. No, I rarely feel more attractive talking to attractive women that choose to talk to me but show no sexual interest.

edit - It's not surprising that women don't trust men's intentions. Not only do they have to worry about every man that speaks to them thinking of them sexually, which I think most women could handle, but they have to worry that if they decide to speak back then the man will assume she is sexually interested as well. I don't harbor a desire for every woman I talk to, and every woman that talks to me doesn't desire me. Maybe people who only befriend others whom they are sexually attracted to can't or shouldn't have platonic relationships. It doesn't mean that there is no possibility that others can or should. If I'm not attracted to every woman I meet then I see no reason why I can't be friends with one of them who is also not attracted to me. I'm pretty sure I do have at least one such friend. She'll be shocked when I tell her that since I don't want her body she must want mine or we can't be friends.

I have never said it is not possible, only that I have never seen it. People have told me that they have such relationships, I have believed that I had such relationships, but in every case where I have had access to information that would say one way or another I knew otherwise. The number of people who have friends that are or were attracted to them and have no idea about it seems quite significant. I have had multiple female friends confess to me at later times that they had had an interest in me that they never voiced and which I had never had any idea of.

If you have a friend with whom you have a completely platonic relationship I am not saying it is impossible, but that it is certainly not common and quite possibly very rare. If you do speak to your friend please let us know if she says whether or not she has ever been attracted to you at all.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Both postulates presume sexual attraction exists. In my experience it does not always exist, but does not preclude friendship when absent. I suspect the dichotomy is more of a trichotomy. There seems to be at least one option missing.

I rewrote the dichotomy specifically to exclude the fiction of the "platonic" relationship. The point was to only include those things that happen in nature.

Is there some kind of biological mandate that says any woman within child-bearing age not related to me must be considered sexually attractive as a requirement or consequence of friendship? I must be missing that because I do have relationships with women that I'm not sexually attracted to.

It may be necessary to you, for the sake of your self image, to spend time with women you're not attracted to. In other words, it's may be more important to you to think of yourself as a fair minded, good, decent, caring human being than it is to pursue the women you'd really like to be talking to. Once a person thinks there can, and should be, "platonic" relationships they could easily start artificially behaving this way to prove to themselves they are not beasts, or they could start putting blinders on as prophylactics against seeing that there's a lot less Plato in male/female friendships than Pan.

Sexual attraction flows as an undercurrent that can be sensed if you pay attention but is almost never discussed because often neither party has any plans of acting on it.

There is a sort of biological mandate here: back in the day the people who were perfectly content to be platonic friends with the opposite sex ended up not passing their genes down.

 

[Huckleberry]

It seems you are still of the habit to at least exaggerate if nothing else.

Those weren't exaggerations. It appeared to me you believe all relationships that aren't familial or have a large age difference also have a sexual component to them. If the only thing enforcing such a rule is a social norm then there will be people outside those norms. If it is a biological function then maybe it is more universal. If it is only a matter of your own experience then I can understand, but to say such relationships do not exist then I don't understand.

The other comment was directed at Zooby who I appear to have correctly assumed believes platonic relationships cannot and should not exist. If I were to mention that to my friend, who I do have a platonic relationship with, then I believe that shock would be her reaction. No exaggeration there either. I'm something like a libertarian, Christian, smoking, bacon-lover. She's more like a socialist, atheist, bicycling, vegan type. We have some great arguments., and we are both sexual beings, but sex is not part of the attraction between us as far as I am aware.

Ok, maybe being absurdly literal is a bit of an exaggeration. The idea that two people who have no sexual desire for each other have something other than a platonic relationship is strange to me. Assuming that if one isn't interested then the other must be is even stranger. It's like the idea of being platonic is being avoided like poking roadkill with a stick, even though that is exactly what it appears to be to me. (platonic, not roadkill)

It is hard to sift through them, and I have found none that are specifically about attractiveness and "first impressions" yet, but you can use google to find that there are several studies regarding the manner in which people are treated in correlation with their attractiveness. Here I found a pdf of an article (I do not have time to read the whole thing yet) that cites several studies in the opening showing "attractive" people tend to receive more positive attention.
And I never said that "unattractive" people would be avoided. A person may wind up in a conversation with a person whom they do not consider attractive but who is attracted to them and receive enjoyment from the interaction based on the attention they receive from the person.

My unanswered question has been, if it is possible for you to talk to someone you are not attracted to then isn't it also possible that the person you are talking to isn't attracted to you? If you aren't avoiding unattractive people then isn't it possible that people who find you unattractive are also not avoiding you? Is a friendship with these people out of the realm of possibility? If not, then even if you were both folk with healthy libidos, wouldn't it be a platonic relationship if neither of you were attracted to the other sexually?

The possibility that there is some biological driver pushing us to be more interested in associating with "attractive" people also does not necessitate that one actually wishes to have sex or a relationship with that person. As I said earlier, I do not feel a desire to have sex with every woman I see that I think looks attractive. Do you? Why does this change simply because the person is also interesting to speak to?

It doesn't change because the person is interested in speaking to you. That's my point. Sometimes people will speak to you and sometimes they would rather not. Sometimes they will be attracted to you and sometimes they won't. Because someone is interested in talking to you doesn't mean that they find you sexually attractive, though they may. Sexual attraction isn't guaranteed simply by the fact that someone enjoys talking to you.

Also, if you do not have any desire to have sex with a woman and she does not desire to have sex with you, but you form a relationship that is not based on sexual attraction, then is that not a platonic relationship? It doesn't necessitate that all your relationships are platonic because one may happen to be. It's not a psychological castration. Remember, I'm not saying the only choices in a male/female relationship are infatuation with every smiling face or total homosexuality.

And are you sure that they are not, and have never been, attracted to you? Have none of them ever told you that they consider you a good looking man? Remember, being attracted to a person does not necessitate that you wish to bed them or date them as you likely see plenty of women you find attractive on a daily basis and most likely do nothing about it.

Don't forget that for the most part I agree with you. I'm arguing against an absolute position. There's no way I can be absolutely certain even if I ask everyone, but the majority of the women I have known either I have been attracted to and/or they have been attracted to me at some point. Still, even if a relationship formed one way and changes into something else, does the past or the present become false? A relationship can begin with sexual attraction and become platonic, or vice-versa. One does not negate the existence of the other from past to present.

Hey, if one does have a platonic relationship and develops a sexual interest in their partner, would that be like cheating on them with them, or would it be more like making a move on one's sister?

I'm also curious if the non-existence of platonic relationships is a belief more widely held by single men seeking relationships, a sort of self-affirming POV. But I'm thinking we should wrap this up quickly and stop hijacking Mentallic's thread.

 

[Huckleberry]

I rewrote the dichotomy specifically to exclude the fiction of the "platonic" relationship. The point was to only include those things that happen in nature.


It may be necessary to you, for the sake of your self image, to spend time with women you're not attracted to. In other words, it's may be more important to you to think of yourself as a fair minded, good, decent, caring human being than it is to pursue the women you'd really like to be talking to. Once a person thinks there can, and should be, "platonic" relationships they could easily start artificially behaving this way to prove to themselves they are not beasts, or they could start putting blinders on as prophylactics against seeing that there's a lot less Plato in male/female friendships than Pan.

Sexual attraction flows as an undercurrent that can be sensed if you pay attention but is almost never discussed because often neither party has any plans of acting on it.

There is a sort of biological mandate here: back in the day the people who were perfectly content to be platonic friends with the opposite sex ended up not passing their genes down.

It is necessary for me to spend time with women I'm not (sexually) attracted to. I like some of those women. They're good people. My life has been better for knowing them. I think it is close-minded, bad, indecent, uncaring to exclude good people from one's life simply because one doesn't find them sexually attractive, not that I haven't also done that when I didn't want to deal with unwanted sexual advances. Contrary to your assertion, I can be friends with women I am not sexually attracted to and still pursue women that I am sexually attracted to. It's not an all or nothing deal where I have to treat everyone the same. Different people evoke different responses. Some of those responses are platonic, not all of them.

Sure, if one were completely platonic it would make passing genes quite difficult. Homosexuality also makes passing genes difficult, but that still exists too. I don't feel sexual desire for all women, so I must be completely platonic? I sometimes feel more beast than man, more Pan than Plato, but I am not completely one or the other, or even in the same place from moment to moment or from one person to the next.

Maybe we have different views on attraction, or a different definition of platonic relationships.

 

[Huckleberry]

Freud is dead and Freud was wrong.

Mostly dead or completely dead? It's psychology of personality. In another decade it will turn out that Freud was right after all. Then he will be wrong again. It's flotsam drifting on the tide. If you don't believe that people are sometimes unaware of the reasons they do things then fine. I think Freud was wrong about many things, but not everything.

 

[DanP]

Mostly dead or completely dead? It's psychology of personality. In another decade it will turn out that Freud was right after all. Then he will be wrong again. It's flotsam drifting on the tide. If you don't believe that people are sometimes unaware of the reasons they do things then fine. I think Freud was wrong about many things, but not everything.

Completely dead and utterly wrong. You can safely throw subconscious down the drain. It's not the rage of the decade to ignore it, psychology simply evolved by leaps and bounds in the last 60 years.

... you don't believe that people are sometimes unaware of the reasons they do things then fine

Look into social cognition theory, not into Freud for this.

 

[Huckleberry]

Look into social cognition theory, not into Freud for this.

Point taken. Thanks. I'll try to say goodbye to my scary uncle.

 

[GeorginaS]

You can safely throw subconscious down the drain.

Wow, I didn't get that memo.

I'm rather fond of my subconscious. I'm not certain I want to throw it down the drain.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Don't forget that for the most part I agree with you. I'm arguing against an absolute position.

Don't forget that I have never made it an absolute position. You have consistently taken all of my comments which I have kept moderate and portrayed them as extreme and absolute.

Believe me, this is not my normal perception of things day to day. I spent a great deal of my life believing that women simply were not interested in me. It seems you find the idea that platonic relationships are not likely to be inappropriate and maybe vain. For me it helped me realize that when my female friend tells me that she thinks I am a good looking guy she may actually be telling the truth and not just trying to make me feel better or saying "Well I couldn't actually point one out to you but there are theoretically women out there who would find you attractive."

I am unsure why you react so strongly to the idea. Why it is that a person considering you attractive, or you them, is somehow disrespectful, inappropriate, vain, or what ever it is you seem to think it is that is so bad about it. There seems to also be a connection with your perceptions from the conversation we had before about men checking out women in that you seem to think that women need to apparently be worried or concerned that men find them sexually attractive. It seems a rather odd idea to me.

 

[tikay]

I totally agree that it is unhealthy for your girlfriend to develop an intimate relationship with another guy. You definitely should let her know how you feel, just know that you cannot force her to do anything. If she respects you she will back down on the guy, if she doesn't it would be time for you to back down on the relationship with her.

I am enjoying much insight on the thread here...some of it very wise. I have read to this post with much interest and admiration and just a bit of chagrin and some all out, downright indignation. I will just add my two cents for a minute, and then read on. Thanks all of you, for posting your honest responses, they are so interesting! I have been in many, many love relationships. I have "left them" and "been left" for so many reasons, and had long ones & short relationships, so I think I have some insight to interject.

My pet peeve in partnerships appears to be, that to many, a commitment to be in fairly consistant companionship together...a relationship, has certain "rules" and cannot be in constant flux. That we can't do this or that, to keep the love relationship alive. Love is not always bound by rules, usually it flows freely like a brook...and certainly cannot be chained.

Having said that, I was gladdened to hear that you are young, just learning about what it means to be in a committed thing, and with the slightly overly possessive ways, (that you have delved into your girlfriends various modes of communique), you seem to be really open to the idea that you will or can, change and grow, and are willing to do things differently, noting that potential "mistake" on your part. That is a lack of trust at a deeper level than i would want in any love partnership. I do not think for one minute that you meant to be invasive, and i believe that you feel you had a right at the time, as your girl seemed to be the object of another mans affections and that can be scary. But many have told you to move on and that I find is pretty radical in your situation.

Although I don't believe in hard and fast rules to loving a partner...girl, boy or hermaphrodite...I do believe you have made a decision to "not trust" the other potential suitor, and possibly not trusted your girl too. That could mire the waters a bit with her.
I personally get fairly intimate with people, i get into the stuff of life on a bus, on a plane on a train...i get into it with the guy who asked me for a cigarette, and whatever... intimacy is not doing something wrong. She can be fairly intimate, without being an untrustworthy girlfriend. She can share much, without ever needing to be scolded, made to feel bad, or be given ultimatums.

Love will ripen and grow whether sex comes into play in relationships or it does not. Alanis Morrisette once asked something along the lines of "Are you mad that I had an emotional affair?" in a song...IF this is what is bothering you, the fact she is possibly sharing her soul with someone, then maybe just think on it and work that out in your mind and with her a bit...you know?

We are making new rules in this life, and some just don't always jibe with the traditional ones. I suggest that maybe you try and get to know the guy and befriend him...and to TRUST...in this situation...trust her, trust him, and trust you. It should all work out, whether the bond you currently have becomes weakened, stregnthened or whatever. You will probably find that being possessive is BOTH very reassuring and disheartening to your girl. We women have mixed feelings about that a lot, and we like a healthy BALANCE. I tend to want a man who will not enjoy it when another man wants me, but i will not respect it in any way, if he tries to tell me I cannot make my own decisions about who i befriend...and I have recently broken the commitment bond over a mans unwarrented jealousy.

I also left another man in the past for saying that i could not be visiting with one of my male friends. I just cannot abide being told what to do as if i am enslaved or being parented. A partnership is just that, it is not ownership...

Got to get to dinner now...wishing any of this helps ya!


(Let me just add that two of my current "best friends" are past relationship partners, the one being, that guy i left over his jealous ways.)


t.k.

 

[DaveC426913]

I also left another man in the past for saying that i could not be visiting with one of my male friends. I just cannot abide being told what to do as if i am enslaved or being parented. A partnership is just that, it is not ownership...

Just curious. Where did the relationship with that male friend end up?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is necessary for me to spend time with women I'm not (sexually) attracted to. I like some of those women. They're good people. My life has been better for knowing them. I think it is close-minded, bad, indecent, uncaring to exclude good people from one's life simply because one doesn't find them sexually attractive, not that I haven't also done that when I didn't want to deal with unwanted sexual advances.

You're pretty much confirming that I hit the nail on the head: it's necessary for your self image to get involved in friendships with women you're not attracted to. Otherwise you'd assess yourself as "close-minded, bad, indecent, uncaring," which would be very unpleasant.

Contrary to your assertion, I can be friends with women I am not sexually attracted to and still pursue women that I am sexually attracted to. It's not an all or nothing deal where I have to treat everyone the same. Different people evoke different responses. Some of those responses are platonic, not all of them.

I didn't make any such assertion. You can, obviously, have all the 'platonic' friendships with women you want and still have friendships you recognize as essentially based in attraction. The assertion I'm making is that the 'platonic' friendships are artificial constructs in the service of your self image. You want to feel that you are a nice person. It's an ethical, moral stance. I think what SA and I are saying (subject to his response) is that the reason we have to adopt ethics and morals is because the natural proclivity goes in a different direction. I think what he and I share is a recognition and admission of the natural proclivity.

I don't feel sexual desire for all women, so I must be completely platonic?

The other comment was directed at Zooby who I appear to have correctly assumed believes platonic relationships cannot and should not exist.

I'm seeing why SA is complaining about you misconstruing what he said.

 

[tikay]

Yeah, the Geiko approach to romance. You can pick any girl you want, beat up any guy who shows interest, and eventually she'll be so intimidated she'll stick with you. It could work. Or you could end up in jail. Or beaten up yourself. In any event, the fact you want her means anyone elses wishes are irrelevant. So easy even a cave man can understand it.

The problem, if it even is a problem, arose here because Mentallic doesn't understand his girlfriend. She's hanging around with this other guy because she can manifest a side of herself to him that Mentallic doesn't recognize or know how to address.

I say "if it even is a problem" because I'm not persuaded the girlfriend has any sexual interest in the other guy. She's undoubtedly primarily interested in being able to relax and talk to him in a way she can't with Mentallic. As others have warned, Mentallic's jealous behavior is the worst threat to his relationship.

My own experience is that, when I had the equanimity to give my girlfriends wide space to be friends with all other guys, they always came back to me. When I felt possessive and jealous, it drove them away. It's a trivial Chinese Finger puzzle situation.

Cavemen have a hard time with this, but the question to ask yourself if your girl seems to be enjoying a warm, intimate conversation with another guy is "What is he doing right that I am not doing?"

Having read to here now, I decided to intervene again...parts of this statement are aligned more to my thinking, such as...you might end up losing your teeth in a fight with this fellow, and girls usually like guys with most of their teeth, who have sense enough to keep them in the mouth...truth be told, so be warned! hehe

And I do believe that jail food and the awkwardness of being held captive, among (some of) the most predatory, uncouth people in the human race (albeit some fine fellows in the wrong place, at the wrong time) is not an option for someone like yourself Mentallic, so again Double~Beware of some of these suggestions!

;~})

I like to believe myself, that as humans we are evolving beyond the caveman type mentality that many of you assume is the norm. Because I was raised with an ethical standard which tells me that we humans have an ability to use a high regard for others, and forgo sexual feelings, (and pleasure) when we are wholeheartedly, soulfully bound to a person as their lover, we do not allow ourselves the right, to let sexual attraction flourish with friends, even if these feelings do come up, so it is usually best to trust people. There may be an occasional slip, where we wonder what a friend might be like in bed, or have a moment, but we do not let that type of thinking take over, or get to us. We, in kindness for our loved one "healthily repress" such notions, we thoughtfully repress said desire, and continue to be a faithful lover and partner. We understand that where our partner is concerned, if we really love them, the ethic of reciprocity is in order. Of course we all know there are exceptions, and lust sometimes wins out, but does that mean we must allow ourselves to be cheated of happiness and live suspiciously? I think not.

I like to believe, (in other words) that, if my partner may have an occasional sexual "moment" with his female friends that he would happily delay or mentally supress any real inclination to act on his momentary desire, moving on quickly to the more acceptable platonic (non-sexual) feelings and leaving that moment in the dust to die. We all have momentary lapses of reason...yet REASON, and acting reasonably should be easily accepted as the best modus operandi, in a relationship, in which both have agreed to exclude others sexually.

Regardless of the "control issues" sometimes inherant in such relationships, if we have agreed, we have agreed to be kind, and yes, we have set up certain "rules" (that in the future may seem banal and even caveman like), we DO have (somewhat flexable) rules...when we have entered into an agreement to be sexually faithful to one another. Some people don't mind partners flirting, and such and some partners allow for more obviously (swingers, open-relationships)...thus flexable.

The right thing on the girls part in your situation Mentallic, would be to merely keep you updated on her true and honest feelings, such as, (I have once or twice felt attracted to him, but that is not going to happen while i am with you, for I am committed to you...) reassuring you that you are the right guy for her at this time, thus alleviating your fears, (hopefully) and your asking for the right to these "emotional updates" i believe, is totally fair to ask.

Her updates, about how she is feeling in any given relationship should be enough for you to be happy to (so called) allow her any friendship she chooses without resorting to invasive tactics, to reassure yourself she is being faithful to you. AND maybe you will realize that perhaps she is in no way attracted to him sexually, as some of us girls are not agists, nor sexually biased, and won't exclude folks from our lives based on mere "gender roles", some of us would find that as repulsive and undesirable a trait to allow in ourselves, as being racist bigots.

I have had many male friends who i truly never would want to see in bed, (for crying out loud!) LOL, but I do love them dearly nonetheless. I also know for a fact, that I have been friends with men who didn't sexually desire me. It just does not always come up. We are not heathens. We are humans.

Life is more complex than that. Some women are drawn to those who are like a father figure, a brother, an uncle, one friend to talk to about certain things, another friend who is good at something else...who each gives us sustenance in various ways, just like women pals do. A former tomboy~ I would not enjoy life so much if i left men out of it, when i am in a love thing with someone, and it isn't fair or right to ask a woman to stop loving men on various levels. So I'm just saying that I am not sure that relationships are as terribly simple as many are surmising in these posts. Basically, broken down, when I enter a love affair, exclusivity is a sort of vow to myself as much as to the guy, that vow being very important to me, on many levels...and only need be broken when the relationship is in a state of disintegrating, and only changing, by issuing an honest statement to the other, that maybe i am now becoming interested in the idea of seeing others, and that becomes the new agreement, or we end the love affair.

I may be the odd person out (it happens) but i am sure that man has the ability to adhere to a great and noble self imposed good will, and if one wills to be a mutually exclusive partner...that any time that we decide to amend that, all we should need to do is tell our partner we are having different feelings, and either agree to act on them, or work on ways to alleviate such feelings, by working on that goal together.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Alanis Morrisette once asked something along the lines of "Are you mad that I had an emotional affair?" in a song...IF this is what is bothering you, the fact she is possibly sharing her soul with someone, then maybe just think on it and work that out in your mind and with her a bit...you know?

You post covers a lot of ground but this part is salient to me.

 

[tikay]

Just curious. Where did the relationship with that male friend end up?

Well we we living in a cooperative environment, so we remained friends while he tried to get back together, amending his decision to try to impose his will on me...he claimed he would change, and i declined to sleep with him further but enjoyed our talks/his company still. (love is LOVE) The "friendship" ended when the place folded, and we both moved on with separate lives (or perhaps) I believe he moved out in a month or so, and I have not heard from/of him again. My memory is not always the very best, that was eight long years ago...i think he left a couple weeks before the place folded, while I stayed on to the end.

I then became interested in the father of my seven year old child, who lived there as well. He is one of the two I have mentioned, that i am best of friends with now.
We had troubles before our girl was born, broke it off when she was born, and lived together as ex's for two years, in a condo before moving on to live separately. We are currently deciding whether to move in together again, as "ex-partners" because the Los Angeles area can be incredibly expensive. He comes and stays with us on weekends, in the extra bedroom, to visit our daughter, we have kept it up for years and years, and he has given me time to go on dates by babysitting on occasion...our friendship can be strained some moments, like all relationships are, but stressors quickly pass, because we want them to, and work through things, and we let it go...and he continues to be very active in our lives.

 

[Huckleberry]

Don't forget that I have never made it an absolute position. You have consistently taken all of my comments which I have kept moderate and portrayed them as extreme and absolute.

Believe me, this is not my normal perception of things day to day. I spent a great deal of my life believing that women simply were not interested in me. It seems you find the idea that platonic relationships are not likely to be inappropriate and maybe vain. For me it helped me realize that when my female friend tells me that she thinks I am a good looking guy she may actually be telling the truth and not just trying to make me feel better or saying "Well I couldn't actually point one out to you but there are theoretically women out there who would find you attractive."

I am unsure why you react so strongly to the idea. Why it is that a person considering you attractive, or you them, is somehow disrespectful, inappropriate, vain, or what ever it is you seem to think it is that is so bad about it. There seems to also be a connection with your perceptions from the conversation we had before about men checking out women in that you seem to think that women need to apparently be worried or concerned that men find them sexually attractive. It seems a rather odd idea to me.

I don't see anything wrong with considering a person attractive. My sister is an attractive woman. Considering a person attractive doesn't make a relationship non-platonic. Sexual desire does. If two people can have a relationship without that desire then I don't understand how the relationship isn't platonic. It's not difficult for me to think of a woman unrelated to me in a similar way that I think of my sister. If a woman shows no sexual interest in me then it's fairly simple, even if I did have sexual interest in her at some point. I don't hold onto that where it isn't wanted because I know the pain it will bring everyone involved. Many men, and sometimes women too, can't reconcile those emotions and ditch the friendship along with the sexual attraction. That's why I think platonic relationships are rare. As unlikely, or even impossible, as it may be for some, it is not as unlikely for everyone. Saying that if one isn't interested then the other most likely is may be correct most times, but it appears to confuse cause with effect to fit the presented model. I don't believe it just happens and doesn't mean anything. I believe there is a cause for that behaviour that does have meaning.

I said before that I think most women could deal with men thinking of them as sexually attractive. It's when a man presumes that if she enjoys his company then she must on some level be sexually attracted to him that problems arise. It pushes the boundaries. It's not that a man or a woman are necessarily sexually attracted to each other because they enjoy each other's company, but people, particularly single men in my experience, unknowingly filter out platonic relationships that could exist in favor of sexual relationships. The sexual attraction is the reason for initiating a relationship and they don't put energy into non-sexual relationships with women that would otherwise be an improvement in their lives. They can form platonic relationships just fine with old ladies, relatives, or maybe their friend's wives, but don't recognize that it is something about their own mindset that causes them to have difficulty even believing platonic relationships can exist between a man and a woman. There is no innate difference between old ladies, female relatives, and friend's wives that makes them sexually different from other women, except in the mind of the man perceiving them. Some men have a sexual preference for those women. If platonic relationships are rare between unattached men and women, and I do believe they are, then I assume it is because sex is a powerful motivator for both men and women. It is an incentive to preferentially seek sexual relationships.

The idea that platonic relationships are not likely isn't vain. Ignoring sexually unattractive, but otherwise decent people, or using sexually attractive people to bolster one's self-esteem among their peers (the scheme of things) can be. If it leads to treating sexually unattractive people with indifference, or selecting a partner for their utility as a sexual trophy then I do believe it is more about one's own vanity than about one's ability to care about their relationships.

I got the impression that the word platonic is being applied to a person as a state in which all people are viewed platonically, rather than the existing state of an individual relationship. Or perhaps it was the idea that if at any point sexual interest exists then a platonic relationship is forever impossible. I think there was some element in your agument, literal or implied, that was absolute, and I transferred it to another mistakenly. I don't know exactly where that came from, but I do apologize for it.

I don't think a man admiring a woman sexually is a bad thing. I think it is very normal. In the thread that you are referring to I recall having the opinion that if a woman doesn't like a man staring at her then it's her own problem. It's just bad form to gawk at a woman's body. It sends all the wrong messages, but is not inherently wrong. The idea that women need to be concerned that men find them attractive is odd to me too. If there is any need for her to be concerned then it is in consideration of other socially inappropriate actions that would threaten her safety.

 

[tikay]

I really believe most girls do not like promiscuity and will go far not to cheat in sex. Promiscuous girls, and there are some, all have something psychologically wrong with them which causes behavior that is outside the norm for females. This is hard for men to grasp because men are hardwired to be promiscuous. We project our own proclivities onto women, when the fact is they actually don't much have those proclivities. Generally speaking, once a girl starts to have sex with a guy, she want to limit herself to only having sex with that guy. She may see 40 guys a day who sexually excite her but she'll stick pretty rigidly to the guy she's invested in when it comes to actually having sex. That's why when this guy said you were foolish to get upset because you'd already "won", he was pretty much right. If she had a promiscuous streak, you'd know it by now. Since she doesn't, it is, as a rule of thumb at least, going to be a lot harder for any man to get her to cheat on you sexually than you imagine.

Regardless, there is always the chance she won't come back or will cheat on you. Having equanimity means you're psychologically prepared for that; being in a state of mind where that's not going to shatter your world.

That may seem absurd, I don't know, but I think what you might need to appreciate it would be to be on the receiving end of relationship where the girl was jealous of you, keeping track of all your moves, always hovering, checking your facebook all the time, calling you every ten minutes, going purple in the face when you looked at other girls, etc. A good dose of that and you'd be way more lenient in all future relationships.

Bottom line is jealously doesn't work, and you feel like crap on top of it.

The whole of the post here was pretty spot on for me, but I want to thank you especially for having faith in most women, we are often very deserving of the vote of confidence.

I was married at 21 to a man who was extremely jealous at times, well most of the time. We married far too quickly, within months of meeting, and I set about having his babies.
He became a very abusive person, and five long years later I divorced him so he would not terminate my existence, over his ridiculous notions. I never cheated on him mentally or bodily, but his fears allowed him to keep me in check constantly, it was incredibly unfair to me at the time. For i loved him with all of my being, and tried to alleviate all of his fears to no avail.

My somewhat promiscuous past was "in our way", and he just could not get past how i had told him i acted out sexually, when I was single, and not in commited relationships...( my sexually charged up youth) & how i was very open to various kinds of relationships.

He did not believe, and could not be convinced over five years time,that I was very much willing to be his happy young wife. He thought I was constantly maligned with sexual thoughts although I was simply not. I wish it had not ruined our love relationship, but he was sometimes just brutal. He went on to be with a woman who was abusive to him, and eventually they became very involved with the church, and are together, still, around twenty years later.
His culture also, was often won't to be very controlling in partnerships, usually the menfolk but sometimes also the women, who kept broomsticks behind doors.( seems everyone was getting beat about the head) a South Pacific Island 'tradition' i hope has since waned in popularity!

Sorry for all the little i's , and such, it is far past my bedtime now, hopefully not taken as a subliminal expression of low self esteem...I may have a bit too much esteem for myself, if anything!
;~})
I'll be off to sleep...adios~

 

[tikay]

You post covers a lot of ground but this part is salient to me.

Thanks~

 

[DanP]

Wow, I didn't get that memo.

You get it now :P

 

[DanP]

Although I don't believe in hard and fast rules to loving a partner...girl, boy or hermaphrodite...I do believe you have made a decision to "not trust" the other potential suitor, and possibly not trusted your girl too. That could mire the waters a bit with her.
I personally get fairly intimate with people, i get into the stuff of life on a bus, on a plane on a train...i get into it with the guy who asked me for a cigarette, and whatever... intimacy is not doing something wrong. She can be fairly intimate, without being an untrustworthy girlfriend. She can share much, without ever needing to be scolded, made to feel bad, or be given ultimatums.

Yeah, but in the end is not even an issue of trust. If a "fairly intimate" behavior makes him feel bad, he should let her know about it. If she ignores it, well, why would he loose any
time in a relationship which makes him feel bad ? Leave her, life is too short to put up with **** which makes you unhappy. This doesn't mean he (OP) shouldn't revisit his behaviors.

Love will ripen and grow whether sex comes into play in relationships or it does not. Alanis Morrisette once asked something along the lines of "Are you mad that I had an emotional affair?" in a song...IF this is what is bothering you, the fact she is possibly sharing her soul with someone, then maybe just think on it and work that out in your mind and with her a bit...you know?

Again, it doesn't worth it. When love will "ripe" even in a non-sexual relation, from my point of view she is free to live with that guy, not with me.

We are making new rules in this life, and some just don't always jibe with the traditional ones. I suggest that maybe you try and get to know the guy and befriend him...and to TRUST...in this situation...trust her, trust him, and trust you. It should all work out, whether the bond you currently have becomes weakened, stregnthened or whatever.

Doesn't worth doing it. Why befriend someone you don't like ? To keep a women near you ? There are others out there with a psychological profile who will fit yours better. Leave her.
As she is creating new rules, so do I create mine. And btw, at least for me, trust is never implicit. Trust, like respect, must be earned. The level of trust I begin from is neutral. No distrust, no stupid sharing of my "darkest secrets".

You will probably find that being possessive is BOTH very reassuring and disheartening to your girl. We women have mixed feelings about that a lot, and we like a healthy BALANCE. I tend to want a man who will not enjoy it when another man wants me, but i will not respect it in any way, if he tries to tell me I cannot make my own decisions about who i befriend...and I have recently broken the commitment bond over a mans unwarrented jealousy.

You can befriend anyone, its your choice. I believe in the ultimate self-determination of humans. But don't be surprised if he leaves you. A relation takes two. If what you do hurts
the person you are in a relationship, and you persist in this behavior, you don't care as much about him as you care about satisfying your desires. Which is fair, no problems with it, but maybe then you shouldn't have a committed relationship.

I also left another man in the past for saying that i could not be visiting with one of my male friends. I just cannot abide being told what to do as if i am enslaved or being parented. A partnership is just that, it is not ownership...

Neither do I take any hints from anyone. But one day it hit me. It hit me that I hurt the my girlfriend who loves me and which does a lot for me, by being very close to other women, even if I didn't screw them. It happened when I started to fall for her, some 6-7 months into the relationship.

What I am trying to tell you is that maybe you should take a break and look at the situation from his point of view, see whatever or not your behavior hurts him. Don't expect him to put up with everything you do only because he doesn't owns you. Neither do you own him. If you are not able to do any concession for him, to make him happy, he is better off without you. In the end, in those cases, the one who is less involved in
the relation will usually break off first. Nothing bad with it. No blame, it just didn't worked out. Ah , yes, I also don't believe in fixing relationships. If it works, fine. If it doesn't , why force it ? Past always comes back, humans generally resist change.

 

[DanP]

The idea that women need to be concerned that men find them attractive is odd to me too. If there is any need for her to be concerned then it is in consideration of other socially inappropriate actions that would threaten her safety.

I agree with this. I could never wrap my head around statements like "I thought we could be friends for what is inside me, not for my body" or "Well, (s)he got this position of work because he is an attractive person and used his sexuality ... "


What "defines" a person is a set of attributes. This includes your physical looks. There is nothing bad in using your looks in making your way though life, not anymore than using your brain. They are both *you*. There is nothing wrong in appreciating a person for their bodies and sexuality, as there is nothing wrong in appreciating , let's say, their PhD in English literature and the passion for it :P

Why try to separate the two ?

 

[Huckleberry]

You're pretty much confirming that I hit the nail on the head: it's necessary for your self image to get involved in friendships with women you're not attracted to. Otherwise you'd assess yourself as "close-minded, bad, indecent, uncaring," which would be very unpleasant.

Yes, it is good for my self-image to not ignore possible relationships with people because I am not (sexually) attracted to them. It would be bad for my self-image if I only desired people based on their level of sexual appeal to me. I do consider it necessary to make friends of good people wherever I find them. Which nail are you aiming at? If you have sexual attraction to all women who's company you enjoy then that's terrific. If you enjoy the company of some women that you don't feel sexual attraction for, then maybe your decision to not have friendships with those women is artificial. Or maybe we just have differing opinions on what is attractive and what is enjoyable.

I didn't make any such assertion. You can, obviously, have all the 'platonic' friendships with women you want and still have friendships you recognize as essentially based in attraction. The assertion I'm making is that the 'platonic' friendships are artificial constructs in the service of your self image. You want to feel that you are a nice person. It's an ethical, moral stance. I think what SA and I are saying (subject to his response) is that the reason we have to adopt ethics and morals is because the natural proclivity goes in a different direction. I think what he and I share is a recognition and admission of the natural proclivity.

When you say that it is more important to me to pursue platonic relationships than the women 'I'd really like to be talking to' you are making a false assertion. If there's no reason I can't be friendly with both then why make such a statement? When you say that people who have platonic relationships don't pass their genes it appears to me that you think all of their relationships are platonic. When you say that platonic relationships are a fiction that people get sucked into believing can and should exist then I think you believe platonic relationships cannot and should not exist. If these things aren't what you mean, then please clarify. The subtext is awfully heavy.

My self-image is as much of an artificial construct as yours. You do what you feel is right I assume because it feels right to you. That doesn't make what feels right to me artificial. It seems like you are saying I do what I feel is wrong because I think it is right, assuming that I must feel like you do.

Well, I mostly do feel like you do, because I do recognize a natural proclivity for sex. But where you say the natural proclivity goes in another direction I find a valuable resource that I'm glad I didn't overlook. Some women I'm not drawn to sexually. Some I am drawn to. I can value the friendship of a woman I don't desire sexually without artificially repressing natural proclivities. Maybe I'm a freak, but my natural proclivities do not extend to all women even remotely equally, and I don't see why they should. Still, they are sometimes people with qualities that I admire.

Calling my friendships artificial constructs is just insulting. Say that I'm artificially repressing desires all day if it pleases you, but you know less than nothing about my friendships.

 

[gabbagabbahey]

A few months back my girlfriend said she's become good friends with this guy that isn't very social. He keeps to himself mostly and as such, she is one of the only friends he has. Now from my experience when it comes to a guy and girl becoming the best of friends in a short period, and spending a lot of their time together, the bond becomes strong because one of them has feelings for the other. And more than often, these feelings are kept discrete enough so that the other is oblivious to what is happening.

Well, my girlfriend is oblivious. I came out straight with her and told her not to spend so much time with him because I had a hunch that he has feelings for her. She of course said I was being ridiculous and whatever.

A few weeks later he starts asking her to go to the city with him. Just them two as friends. Well this is how she saw it anyway... I didn't let her, and thankfully she understood.

Eventually he let's it out and says that he likes her. When speaking to me about it she wanted to start ignoring him but at the same time cherished the friendship they had. I didn't like the idea of it and thought a friendship that has lasted just one month wasn't enough for any serious attachments and so she should be able to let him go. Well apparently not. I instead agreed to her proposal to stop interacting with him as much, and declining any "friendly" dates.


Fast-forward to a few weeks ago which should put it around 2 months later. I was over her place and while she was showing me stuff on her facebook I noticed how often this guy appeared to be chatting to her again. I checked her phone and while there were only a few inbox messages from him, there were a whole lot more outbox messages to him. Obviously she had deleted selected texts from her inbox.
But she says she deleted them because I would get angry with it. Well, she's right about that.

A few moments later while logged onto her msn he came online and started talking to her. Since I had control of the computer, I read his greeting and did something else to try and ignore it. I was furious...
If that wasn't enough, he started drawing pictures on msn and sending them to her. Quite the artist he is, I give him that. But to see how much effort he was putting into it for my girlfriend, and while having noticed he asked her to go to the city with him pushed me over the edge.

I went off at him. Amongst all the raging, I do remember him saying I should stop being so territorial and that I had won, she likes me and not him, so I should let it go. What really annoyed me is that yes if I weren't at all territorial then I'd be allowing him to step all over me and that would basically be saying, sure, try wow my girlfriend all you can, she is fair game and the best man wins. The fact that he also said that I win clearly indicates he was challenging me for her, which as far as I have seen, doesn't happen all that often amongst already established couples. But when it does, fists break loose.

This time I enforced that she most definitely can't talk to him any more. She has to ignore him completely etc. etc.
She still feels guilty about it and feels that same attachment for the friendship she felt months earlier. This is when she said that I should stop being so jealous about her and other guys.

Am I really being over-protective here? I feel I have a right to act the way I did, but it probably depends on each person's opinion on the topic.

By the way, I am pretty certain that she's completely faithful to me and we love each other dearly, so if she is to have any reason to say that I'm being too jealous about this, it's because she wouldn't cheat on me.

There's an old saying: 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. I think it applies quite well to this situation. Rather than creating stress on your relationship with your girlfriend by effectively keeping her on a leash, you might try be-friending her suitor. Worst case scenario; you'll find out in a hurry if they've become more than friends, and can make a decision on your next course of action then. Best case scenario; being friends with you will further dissuade him from pursuing your girlfriend and the issue will be resolved in your favor.

 

[DanP]

My somewhat promiscuous past was "in our way", and he just could not get past how i had told him i acted out sexually, when I was single, and not in commited relationships...( my sexually charged up youth) & how i was very open to various kinds of relationships.

He did not believe, and could not be convinced over five years time,that I was very much willing to be his happy young wife. He thought I was constantly maligned with sexual thoughts although I was simply not. I wish it had not ruined our love relationship, but he was sometimes just brutal. He went on to be with a woman who was abusive to him, and eventually they became very involved with the church, and are together, still, around twenty years later.
His culture also, was often won't to be very controlling in partnerships, usually the menfolk but sometimes also the women, who kept broomsticks behind doors.( seems everyone was getting beat about the head) a South Pacific Island 'tradition' i hope has since waned in popularity!

Sorry for all the little i's , and such, it is far past my bedtime now, hopefully not taken as a subliminal expression of low self esteem...I may have a bit too much esteem for myself, if anything!
;~})
I'll be off to sleep...adios~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CEOQUgro6yM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CEOQUgro6yM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[DanP]

There's an old saying: 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. I think it applies quite well to this situation. Rather than creating stress on your relationship with your girlfriend by effectively keeping her on a leash, you might try be-friending her suitor. Worst case scenario; you'll find out in a hurry if they've become more than friends, and can make a decision on your next course of action then. Best case scenario; being friends with you will further dissuade him from pursuing your girlfriend and the issue will be resolved in your favor.

What for ? Why befriend anyone you don't like, and you don't relate to ? It's a complete waste of time.

 

[tikay]

If I only had a brain. Finding where one fits in the scheme of things is vague. I suspect it is more like making a place where one desires to be. No, I rarely feel more attractive talking to attractive women that choose to talk to me but show no sexual interest.

edit - It's not surprising that women don't trust men's intentions. Not only do they have to worry about every man that speaks to them thinking of them sexually, which I think most women could handle, but they have to worry that if they decide to speak back then the man will assume she is sexually interested as well. I don't harbor a desire for every woman I talk to, and every woman that talks to me doesn't desire me. Maybe people who only befriend others whom they are sexually attracted to can't or shouldn't have platonic relationships. It doesn't mean that there is no possibility that others can or should. If I'm not attracted to every woman I meet then I see no reason why I can't be friends with one of them who is also not attracted to me. I'm pretty sure I do have at least one such friend. She'll be shocked when I tell her that since I don't want her body she must want mine or we can't be friends.

Thankfully there are a few of you saying this, and I may furthur relax. How do you think it feels to be consistantly objectified and subtly vilified as just a sort of bait that men wish to conquer, lustfully? I know there are many men who have arrived at a place where they are not looking at every attractive female as someone to potentially bed.

I am not looking to talk to attractive people or befriend attractive people I befriend whomever is placed in my general vicinity...and i seem to mesh more with the elderly than most. (Raised with a lot of 'grandparental' influence) I hope that does not mean there is something wrong with me, but a person can be fat or thin, weak or strong, femenin in a masculine body, and vice versa, and whatever...i will potentially become their friend. The way the go through life, their values are what draws me or repulses. So yeah, having attractive friends can be advantageous, in crazy ways, for instance when your single and looking, having a very attractive pal, will act as a lure to other attractive folks who in turn may become your attractive future partner) but, that does not mean that we should seek out attractive friends.

Being objectified (hopefully) isn't pleasent for anyone, (unless they are downright oblivious) being a trophy should not be something anyones seeks for their own gain. But having an attractive mate is thrilling, as an artist i have been with some of the most beautiful people i have ever seen, I didn't get together with them just because they were pretty, they had to have more juice than that. its the energy inside, that draws more...and you all realize that it is no fault of their own when a person is wonderful, and gorgeous.

When given a choice, of a beautiful body with a nasty personality, or a beautiful person who has had a sub-standard appearance, i'll take the latter, absolutely, even tho, there have been enough choices to have been able to get the best of both worlds. I have done a bit of both and been happy every time to have had the experience of growing in love with them.

 

[tikay]

I rewrote the dichotomy specifically to exclude the fiction of the "platonic" relationship. The point was to only include those things that happen in nature.


It may be necessary to you, for the sake of your self image, to spend time with women you're not attracted to. In other words, it's may be more important to you to think of yourself as a fair minded, good, decent, caring human being than it is to pursue the women you'd really like to be talking to. Once a person thinks there can, and should be, "platonic" relationships they could easily start artificially behaving this way to prove to themselves they are not beasts, or they could start putting blinders on as prophylactics against seeing that there's a lot less Plato in male/female friendships than Pan.

Sexual attraction flows as an undercurrent that can be sensed if you pay attention but is almost never discussed because often neither party has any plans of acting on it.

There is a sort of biological mandate here: back in the day the people who were perfectly content to be platonic friends with the opposite sex ended up not passing their genes down.

But isn't it more important to BE fair-minded, solid, good people, reliable to be a friend to anyone who may be needy of one? Isn't it a good choice to be un biased about soemthing as surface as how one looks? Does that mean it is wrong if we are not choosy in that area?

I have always considered myself rather plain. Only by looking back at pictures from my youth can i see how striking I could be (on occasion). The fact that people would treat me far better when I wore make-up has always REALLY bothered me because equality has been a thing with me, since i was very young (and not just for children, the elderly, impoverished, un-healthy, obese, mentally or physically challanged) or women, i noticed that humans deserved to be treated fairly, and men are human too, alas...haha)
Also I had one strange buck tooth, (turns out men found attractive) that made me consider that i myself was not attractive to a lot of people, usually monied folk. (it was from playing football with the boys)
;}
Since I considered myself a tomboy, other issues also came into play...such as why do people expect me to wear this junk? Why do they treat me like I am more deserving of anything, because i have it on, i am still ME, and etc...and I still have this basic instinct that it is wrong to treat someone better based on their appearance. That if they have been born with a healthier or cuter gene, that does not mean they are "better" than the next guy.