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.