

A Man. A Woman. Just Friends? - orky56
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/a-man-a-woman-just-friends.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

======
Lazare
The article has, I think, one terrible point, which in turn is hiding one good
point.

The terrible point is, basically, "men and women just can't help being
sexually attracted to each other", and it permeates the entire article. Even
when the author is attempting to question this basic premise it still warps
his phrasing. Why is it terrible? Well, because it's not true, for one. But
beyond that, it's a remarkably heteronormative idea; it comes coupled with an
inherent mental model that everyone is heterosexual.

Consider: Is a male homosexual who hangs out with the other guys on his team
going to be _unavoidably_ attracted to every single one? If he hangs out with
the girls on his team are they going to be _unavoidably_ attracted to him?
Does any homosexual individual, thus, _unavoidably_ cause unrequited feelings
of lust, no matter whom he hangs out with? Will a bisexual individual be
_unavoidably_ attracted to every person he meets? It it, say, just a feature
of gay life that they are constantly frustrated as they keep meeting straight
guys whom they can't help but be attracted to (whereas straight males can just
avoid hanging out with females and remain unfrustrated)?

No. That's not how it works, for anyone, gay or straight. Apart from a few
relatively rare mis-fires, we are only sexually attracted to people who are
attracted to _us_. (This one of of the major misconceptions that led to
restrictions on homosexuals serving in the military. And there's no question
it's a misconception.) Most pairs of people - regardless of gender and
orientation - simply don't have that sexual spark.

The good point hidden in the article is that American culture has no real idea
of "friendship" in a sense that people from other cultures either now or
historically would recognize as such. American's just don't have friends. We
have weak acquaintencnes. Why? Nobody seems to know. But it's something that
probably deserves more attention.

But in this context, the question "can men and women be friends", in the
context of American culture, actually has an answer. "No". But since the same
answer is true of "can men be friends" and "can women be friends", this
doesn't mean quite what it seems. :)

~~~
noibl
> we are only sexually attracted to people who are attracted to us

Taken literally, this is a pretty absurd claim. I think your post would be
more convincing without it.

~~~
Lewton
Should probably be rephrased to "We are only sexually attracted to people who
we believe are attracted to us"

Which might still be stretching it a bit, but I believe it to be mostly true

~~~
pagekalisedown
I'm no psychologist, but I think you're correct. Nobody likes to be rejected,
so the safest option is to go for people who we think are attracted to us.

------
ajays
I think this article is written (and this question is asked) from a very
American point of view. Having grown up in another culture but spent a
significant part of my life in the US, I've come to the conclusion that
there's a bit too much sexual tension in this culture; as if the underlying
desires are being repressed, and thus could burst out any time there's an
opportunity (like, say, being friends with the opposite sex).

For me, sex and friendship are different dimensions. I can have sex with
someone I'm not interested in being friends with. I can be friends with
someone I'm not interesting in having sex with. My long-term relationships, of
course, have always been with someone with high values in both dimensions. And
I'm still very good friends with several of my exes, who have gone on to happy
relationships. We stopped the sex part, but the friendship dimension stayed.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
I thought the same regarding the American point of view. I grew up in Europe.
It's hard to explain exactly what I mean, but I think American culture has
less tolerance for gray areas in these matters.

~~~
personlurking
In Brazil, among the youth, there's something called "ficar" (to remain, to
stay) which translates to "getting with someone", which in turn can mean
anything from kissing to sex. Ficar is something that usually happens more
than once, as in you 'stay' with the same person several times. Think of it
like a temporary boyfriend/girlfriend, no strings attached.

There's also "pegar" (to get or grab) and that is like "ficar" but more
physical and usually just once.

Among a group of friends, changing around the person with whom you ficar or
pegar is quite normal. It's as if they are choosing which shirt to wear for
the day. Afterwards, everyone remains friends, just like before. In terms of
relationships, one woman told me that it's perfectly normal to get to know
someone through 'ficar', as if actually getting to know someone before
deciding to kiss them is passé.

So take the US workplace example given where there's this repressed feeling
going around in regards to sexual tension....well, in Brazil everyone (the
youth) is cool with it. There's not even a need to hide it from others. 'It's
part of life, let's enjoy it.'

------
jonnathanson
A lot of it has to do with socialization. I was socialized with a pretty
broadly mixed-sex peer group as a young child. I had friends who were boys,
and friends who were girls, though admittedly a lot more of the former than
the latter. I attended elementary school (and high school, and college, and
now the workplace) with a roughly equal number of young men and women. And
today, I can count on almost as many female friends as male friends. I can
assure you that there's little to no underlying sexual tension in 99% of those
friendships.

All of this would have been unthinkable in my grandfather's day. As the
article points out, previous generations had far stricter boundaries on the
man's place in society, and the woman's. Young men rarely socialized with
young women until the teenage years, which coincided precisely with the most
raging period of hormonal upswing, and the result was a potent cocktail of
mystery and awkwardness surrounding the opposite sex. Then they went off into
separate workplaces, or at best, mixed workplaces with very strict boundaries
of separation. Quite simply, they were never given the _chance_ to develop
normative standards of mixed-sex friendship.

The premise that men and women are ineluctibly attracted to one another, and
thus, a male friend and a female friend secretly want to fuck, is a broad
generalization hammered on top of a specific, interpersonal dynamic. It
doesn't hold up, except in those very rare cases where it does. "When Harry
Met Sally" inverts the rule and the exception, taking a specific case -- _this
particular guy_ and _this particular woman_ want to bang -- and applying it
more universally. We encounter the same problem when trying to apply Ross and
Rachel archetypes. Ross and Rachel are secretly attracted to one another
_because the writers of the show created them that way_. It's not "inevitable"
that any given Ross and any given Rachel are destined to pine for one another.
(Likewise, nobody ever takes note of the fact that Ross and Phoebe were
friends, and no sexual tension existed there. In a parallel universe, it's
entirely possible that the creators of "Friends" never made anybody attracted
to anyone else on the show, although I suspect that version of the show is a
lot more boring). Art can imitate life, and life can imitate art, but we
should be very careful to note the differences between the two.

------
forgottenpaswrd
Yes, just friends. If I want a lover I will say to her.

"Close friendship between members of the same sex, are also suspect"

And this, my Hacker news friends, is what we call a dirty, unsatisfied and
repressed mind.

This reminds me to catholic priests in my childhood, if it is taboo for you to
have sex you can start obsessing about sex, thinking too much of sex, seeing
it everywhere, even inventing it when there is none. The problem is not in the
people, the problem is in you.

Here in Spain we hug our friends, and we kiss our other sex friends a lot. In
Morocco two male friends will hold hands together. It is part of the culture.

~~~
Shivetya
then you have our wonderful work place rules which have to go to such extents
to keep people away from each other so as not to offend anyone and bring on a
lawsuit.

I have worked at places where they asked people not to kiss their spouse
goodbye when being dropped off and such. Really. We had two married couples
working at the same place and both were told no open signs of affection were
permitted. All because it could offend someone else.

The worst was the no flowers office. Glad I was only there six months. Yeah,
no flowers, no cards. The only thing allowed were pictures of kids or family
photos. Bizarre.

Then you get into those places where if you do go to lunch with someone of the
opposite sex people love to have fun with innuendos.

~~~
danso
This was in America? How big of a company?

------
Groxx
Why do we so rarely see it in popular culture? Oh, I don't know. Maybe for the
same reason you don't see TV shows about people getting along and living
normal lives; there's no " _drama_ " when things just work.

I _really_ hate articles like this.

~~~
rayiner
The author makes a quite interesting point about our culture. Media portrays a
fundamentally more sexualized dynamic between men and woman than exists in
reality. "Friends" is a pretty great example--pretty much everyone in that
show that wasn't related ended up sleeping together.

I don't think you can explain it simply by saying friendships are not good
fodder for drama. The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful story about
friendships, of all different sorts. The relevant friendships are all between
males, of course, but it was written nearly 60 years ago.

~~~
rbarooah
Lord of the rings draws its dramatic tension from evil and the threat or
violence and death instead of sex.

------
reduxredacted
He seems to argue that it's very difficult to have platonic male/female
friendships in a heterosexual context.

Speaking as anecdotally as that article did. My first roommate was a girl.
Neither of us wanted to have sex with eachother. It was a shared
rent/utilities arrangement and she got the second room because she was the
only one of my friends who I would trust to not destroy the place. She was
easy to get along with and our relationship was as platonic as it would have
been with a guy (I'm straight, to clear that up). Despite [my parent's] faith
not allowing such things (rather judgmental Catholic family), they thought it
was a great idea because they knew "us" in context and even _they_ saw it as
no different than having a same gender roommate (believe me, I agonized
explaining the situation to them and was shocked when they outright endorsed
it).

Today, I'm just finishing off a divorce. Of my three closest friends, the top
two are women that I had lost touch with years ago. Both are exceptionally
attractive, single, women (I'm no Brad Pitt, but I've never had a problem
attracting, either).

I think the simplest way to have a successful platonic relationship is to be
transparent about sex. I think some of us are too insecure to even think of
doing that, but it's really not difficult. If you really find your friend
attractive, say so. If you previously had feelings for them but do not now,
say so. If they're really a meaningful friend, the awkwardness won't last long
as long as you're not so hung up on rejection that you can't take getting a
"let's be friends". I've done this with both of my two friends, one I simply
reassured that I'm not at all interested in a relationship, the other I
admitted my attraction to years ago and was not reciprocated. I cherish the
friendship of both and after a short time of grousing about the latter
relationship, I realized she was right and we'd be a terrible fit.

Now as a divorced man, I'm looking for a roommate. I'm not interested in a
relationship beyond friendship and I don't see that changing regardless of the
person. I'd consider either one of them (and that is likely to happen at some
point in very the near future), but not my best "guy" friend.

*Edit: Bracketed items for clarification.

------
Shenglong
I'd argue that when a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman become
_friends_ , at least one party _wants_ to have sex with the other. This desire
doesn't need to be realizable, but the desire must be there.

Why? Well, because we want to have sex with people we're attracted to. Thus,
the only way for neither party not to want sex, is for neither party to be
attracted (physically, intellectually, emotionally) to the other... but if
that's the case, and neither party finds the other attractive in any
attributes, then why would they be friends in the first place?

I suppose there are those rare instances where both parties find the other
physically intolerable, but enjoy the intellectual pursuits. But then, perhaps
we need to redefine _man_ and _woman_ in this context.

~~~
hetman
I don't understand this at all. I don't want to have sex with any of my male
friends yet I still find compelling reasons for friendship with them. So why
then can't things that are completely non-sexual attract me to women and be a
foundations for a friendship with them too?

It almost sounds like we are nothing more than the sum of some animalistic
urges we have little control over. I have not found this to be my experience,
and sometimes wonder if it isn't a popular myth we like to use to excuse our
behaviours sometimes.

~~~
wazoox
> _It almost sounds like we are nothing more than the sum of some animalistic
> urges we have little control over._

Actually it looks like that's precisely what many believe; that's the excuse
for veiling women in "traditional" religious societies after all (because you
know, men all are rabid rapists; at least all pious believers must be,
apparently).

~~~
wpietri
You're close, but the actual view is that all men are noble souls who are
corrupted instantly when they glimpse a woman's ankle. Conclusion: women are
inherently wicked and must be suppressed.

------
drblast
Imagine the following conversation between a (heterosexual) married couple:

Husband: "Hey honey, I'm going over a friend's house and we're going to hang
out on the couch and watch the game."

Wife: "OK! See you in a few hours. What's your friend's name?"

And tell me with a straight face that it makes no difference if the husband
says "Bob," or "Sally."

The problem with opposite sex friendships is that even with the best of
intentions, they won't survive when one of you is in a long term sexual
relationship. And deep down, you both know that.

~~~
Groxx
None. Zero. My wife has quite a few close male friends, and I feel
_absolutely_ no threat from any of them. She's a snuggler, and semi-
consciously leans on anyone in the vicinity when we're all around watching a
movie or something. Usually that's me, but not always.

Why _should_ I feel threatened about this? This relationship isn't a game to
be won, and they aren't my competitors.

~~~
drblast
Scenario #2:

You and your wife have a big argument. She storms out of the house, and says
either:

A. "I'm going to go hang out and watch a movie alone with Dave."

B. "I'm going to go hang out and watch a movie alone with Sally."

Still, no difference?

I get that people can be open-minded and trusting, but I think there are some
basic things that most people just don't do. And those things have everything
to do with the underlying assumptions about the relationship between a man and
a woman.

Sure, there are exceptions. But in general, there are more problems with
platonic opposite sex friendships than same sex, and I think there always will
be because of the scenarios I've mentioned.

~~~
Groxx
No difference.

A. Fights happen. And they're very _very_ different than a divorce. We're not
together just for sex, or just because we never fight.

B. I trust my wife.

C. We've had fights, she's gone to male friends to cool off. They have
_helped_.

What, don't you trust your friends? (edit: of which a wife should be one)

------
RyanMcGreal
A half-baked thesis, warmed-over pop-culture anecdotes and phoned-in analysis:
I have no idea how this ended up on the front page of HN, let alone on the
pages of the New York Times.

------
sethg
One factor here is that the people running Hollywood studios assume that men
don’t want to buy tickets to a movie where the main female character is
anything _but_ the romantic partner of the main male character. (Yeah, the
success of the Harry Potter series demonstrates that this assumption is
bullshit, but... well... studio execs have a lot of practice rationalizing
away exceptions like this. It’s like their assumption that white audiences
won’t watch movies with a black main character, unless that main character is
played by Will Smith.)

~~~
Apocryphon
I like this article because it not only goes over the historical changes to a
social phenomenon, but calls out entertainment for being cliched about it.

------
davemel37
If this isn't an argument to hack hollywood I don't know what is?!

"When you can't improve on the silence don't open your mouth."

Seriously, This opinion made no sense to me, had no support for any of its
historical claims, and sounds to me like the author has a thing for a female
friend of his, and this is his way of trying to appear platonic and not seem
creepy.

------
jurre
Now that's just silly, I have lots of female friends and there is no sexual
tention at all.

~~~
FaceKicker
Did you finish the article?

~~~
jurre
Yes, I did, but I didn't take the conclusion as 'nowadays it's perfectly
possible for men and women to just be friends', I read it more as 'maybe it
will be posible in the future'.

------
kanchax
I agree that a purely platonic relationship between a man and a woman is
impossible. If exists I suppose not that the brain of the people implied is
fundamentally different than mine but rather they have developed a part of
their brain that masks their now unconscious desires. From those desires will
grow a head-start appreciation for the other sex (or same) that those of the
your sex (or other) will not have.

If your desire is quenched then not much will happen. If it is not, then you
will of course search for ways to quench it. Dopamine. The result depends on
vision of the world. I have personally left behind the race for women and now
focus on the race for coolness, if you will. Ultimately it is the same either
way to my feelings but in my tribe coolness is better than sex.

------
petegrif
I strongly recommend 'A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Largest
Experiment Reveals about Human Desire' by Sai Gaddam and Ogi Ogas. It's big
data applied to the study of human sexuality. Essential reading!

------
ncarroll
Sexual tension? In friendships? Wait a minute, why not? Let's don't be
disingenuous, here. We love it, don't we? Isn't why we read books, go to
movies, watch silly TV series? It works there because it's universal. We've
all felt it.

I don't have to act on it if I don't want to but in some relationships it
simply occurs, naturally. When it does, I try to refrain from doing violence
to one of Life's most enjoyable feelings by denying it, repressing it or
labelling it right off the stage with the sibling comparison.

------
83457
I always enjoyed Chris Rock's commentary on the subject of platonic friends.
Seriously though I think everyone is a bit different on this one. I've had
multiple female friends and there was often some sexual tension but honestly
that may have been part of what kept some of the friendships interesting. It
is a kind of like a relationship without the actual sex. This might come up
most often for people once they get out of college in the context of a "work
spouse".

------
Swizec
A man and a woman can be just friends.

It is in fact even possible for two persons who are just friends to have sex.
There is nothing wrong with that, they can continue being just friends and
never intending anything serious to come of it.

It's even possible for a man and a woman to be just friends, always talking
about sex (and almost nothing else) and there not being a single bit of sexual
tension.

However, what I've found is almost impossible, is for a man and a woman (both
single and/or young) to be alone in a dark room for any length of time to,
say, watch a movie, and nothing physical happening. At the very least there
will be cuddling.

But that has nothing to do with being just friends or not.

After all, friendship is just a label, if both parties agree to call their
relationship a friendship, then it is a friendship no matter what actually
goes on and what anyone else might think.

~~~
jrockway
_However, what I've found is almost impossible, is for a man and a woman (both
single and/or young) to be alone in a dark room for any length of time to,
say, watch a movie, and nothing physical happening. At the very least there
will be cuddling._

I've been in this situation without anything physical happening. Seems like
the default state.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It's such a huge generalisation and it's false.

------
munyukim
It depends on the type of friendship you have.

------
carguy1983
In my view early in life and later in life, it's possible.

During prime match making years, 20-30, you've got to be kidding. The only
exception I can think of is people who were family friends from very early
childhood that behave more like siblings when they get older.

The idea that, for example, any 28 year old male I know will just hang out
completely platonically with, for example, a 25 year old female "friend" which
he met in the last 5 years, sounds like complete science fiction.

~~~
rayiner
I'm a 27 year old male, and more than half my friends are female. Why be
friends with a bunch of girls I'm not trying to sleep with? For the same
reason you're friends with anyone else. Variously, they're funny, interesting,
loyal, give good advice, etc.

Indeed it seems foreign to me that you couldn't be friends with someone just
because you find them attractive. If I were bisexual, would I have no friends
at all? Could I only be friends with ugly people?

~~~
somaticthoughts
I think we can take you at your word that you are not trying to sleep with all
of your female friends. Talking specifically about hetero males at the moment,
for the sake of discussion, I hope we can all also acknowledge value for men
in relationships with women beyond sex - "they're funny, interesting, loyal,
give good advice, etc" as you mention, with the "etc" representing a huge list
of additional items.

But the point is not whether you _can_ be friends with a member of the sex you
are sexually oriented towards, but whether you can be _just_ friends.

Take your list of female friends and think about each one in turn. Please only
include people that you invest in a relationship with, not just acquaintances
or additional people that happen to be around or in your social circles. For
each, assume that both you both have no social/practical/ethical/moral
constraints keeping you apart (other relationships, for example). Further
assume that somehow this person is the best reasonable prospect for a mate
available to you. Would you pursue a romantic relationship with her?

You seem to suggest that you find some of your friends attractive. I can take
this no other way except to mean attractive as a potential mate or sexual
partner (though you don't intend to act on this in your current situation -
that is understood). For those you consider attractive I will assume that the
answer to the question is "yes", you would pursue her. I think we are getting
into the definition of attraction here and I can't think of another way to
look at it.

Are there any in your list that you would answer "no" to? Why? I suspect that
an honest assessment would yield very few or not any "no" answers for female
friends that a man has developed a friend relationship with beyond the
acquaintance level. Am I wrong?

I think it is natural that the things that draw you to a woman in friendship
probably correlate strongly with your list of what makes women attractive to
you, so you will tend to be friends with women you consider attractive. Please
don't read any suggestion of ill intent into this - that's not the point.
Again, the point is that we are talking about whether you can _just_ be
friends. The sexual attraction and potential for romance, even if very
theoretical, will often or nearly always be there and will color the
relationship, perhaps even in a very subtle way. It does not mean you have any
conscious sexual designs, but it is still part of the relationship.

~~~
rayiner
> For each, assume that both you both have no social/practical/ethical/moral
> constraints keeping you apart (other relationships, for example). Further
> assume that somehow this person is the best reasonable prospect for a mate
> available to you. Would you pursue a romantic relationship with her?

That's a phenomenally contrived hypothetical that circumscribes the
applicability of your argument to the narrowest possible domain. Yes, if one
of my female friends was the last woman on earth I would pursue her. What does
that say about real relationships between real people where that contrived
premise does not hold?

> For those you consider attractive I will assume that the answer to the
> question is "yes", you would pursue her. I think we are getting into the
> definition of attraction here and I can't think of another way to look at
> it.

Under your hypothetical yes, but that doesn't prove much. All it proves is the
definition of "attractive" which is someone you would have sex with.

> The sexual attraction and potential for romance, even if very theoretical,
> will often or nearly always be there and will color the relationship,
> perhaps even in a very subtle way.

By your reasoning, no bisexual could have people whom he is "just friends"
with, using your definition of "just friends." To look it it another way,
there are always emotional undercurrents coloring friendships, regardless of
the gender of the friend. Why single out physical attraction? Is it the case
that you can never really be friends with a guy you work with, because there
is always the underlying competitive tension? Is it the case that you can
never really be friends with someone whose politics or lifestyle you strongly
disapprove of?

Friendships exist at the equilibrium between competing forces. Forces like
physical attraction can make friendships difficult, but so can forces like
jealousy or competitiveness. People form real friendships despite those forces
because the countervailing forces are stronger.

~~~
somaticthoughts
I agree the example was unnecessarily long-winded, distracting, and almost
tautological. Sorry about that.

I think we might agree but are talking past each other. You say "Why single
out physical attraction?" No reason except attraction in friendships is
exactly what we are discussing.

Where I believe we are getting hung up though is that you believe that
inherent in the assertion that men and women (assuming hetero again) cannot
"just" be friends implies that they cannot be "real" friends. Nobody is saying
that. Nobody is saying that attraction implies malicious intent. Nobody is
saying that because there is attraction that a friend relationship is based
completely on false pretenses or merely serve an ulterior motive. Furthermore,
I believe you are a "real" friend to all of your friends - I have no reason to
believe otherwise.

Your concluding paragraph is wonderful and I agree. "Friendships exist at the
equilibrium between competing forces" is a great way to put it. My point is
that, in almost all cases, one of those forces pulling a man to a woman in any
kind of relationship is sexual attraction. I believe vice-versa is often true,
but the man to woman attraction almost invariably will be a factor in the
relationship.

Again, the friendship can be real and contain good intentions and real
cooperation. It does not suggest an ongoing campaign of seduction. The poorly
stated thought experiment was merely to ask if you acknowledge the force of
sexual attraction as an important one in the equilibrium you describe.

Can you honestly say for any of the friend relationships you have with women
that attraction is a negligible component of the equilibrium? Are there any
from which you are not deriving at least a little bit of ongoing benefit from
the good feelings of being liked by or associated with an attractive woman?

All that I am saying is that I believe the attraction is almost always there
and has a big role in who we choose to befriend and keep as friends. Even if
it is completely innocuous in most cases we should acknowledge it.

Hopefully I have clarified sufficiently. Do you still believe you disagree? I
am very interested in your answers to my previous questions. Thanks for
reading.

------
drivebyacct2
The problems with women and men being "just friends" are the same as those
that afflict any pairing of people, couple or not: a difference of
expectations. I have plenty of very close relationships with members of the
gender that I prefer. I've never had a problem keeping friendships and
relationships distinct. I find this mentality very unforunate.

------
munyukim
Its possible to hava friendship with oppositd, but as u get closer one of you
might get confused.

------
pinaceae
oh come on, enough with that pc bullcrap already.

can man and woman be friends? sure, if at least one side sees the other as
sexually unattractive, undesirable. that could be plain ugliness, sexual
orientation or status/wealth.

but man and woman, or gay pairings that find each other desirable? why should
there be friendship if nature tells you to fuck each other?

real friendship can only exist if there is no sexual desire.

then there is the second form of friendship, the less talked about one: the SM
one. one quite attractive female and her fat "best friend". always together,
especially on a night out. the good looking one using the fat one as a boost
to her ego and ugly backdrop for any male choosing between them. the fat one
leeching off her friend's attention and snapping up the male leftovers.

the male equivalent is pretty much the setup for the tv series Entourage.

