No man can be friends with a woman he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her. – Harry Burns (Billy Crystal) in When Harry Met Sally
In “Ice Cream in the Hand” I asserted that “it’s a lot easier for a woman to learn to understand men than it is for a man to understand women,” but I intentionally omitted a huge caveat to that because it opens up a tangent that requires an entire column of its own. With that qualifier in place, the first part of the statement reads, “it’s a lot easier for a woman to learn to understand men, assuming she wants to learn”; while it’s true that men usually cannot understand women, it’s equally true that women usually will not understand men. While guys have trouble comprehending the complex and shifting pattern of female sexuality, gals have similar trouble accepting the simple but threatening reality of the male drive. And though the typical man knows that women are different from him but can’t quite work out how, the typical woman prefers to deny that men are different from her and insists that apparent dissimilarities are pathological deviations from the (female) norm.
One perfect example of this can be seen in the strikingly disparate ways in which men and women perceive heterosexual friendships; to a man friendship is an end in itself only with other men, while with women it is perceived as an incomplete or intermediate state in comparison with a sexual relationship. Hence the distinctly masculine concept of “friends with benefits”; though I’ve heard some women use the expression, it only truly makes sense to the male mind because it automatically implies that the state of friendship with a woman is incomplete (i.e. lacking benefits, else the clause “with benefits” would be redundant). Women, on the other hand, perceive friendship as an end in itself whether the friend is male or female. It is this incongruity which has created the growing controversy over the idea of the “friend zone”: men see it as an accurate description of a certain type of relationship, while many feminists petulantly decry it as a “denial of a woman’s right to refuse sex”. This is an unusually hypocritical cant even by feminist standards, because it does exactly what it accuses those who speak of the “friend zone” of doing: demonizing and belittling the feelings of the opposite sex.
People who pay attention to what’s actually going on around them rather than looking at everything through a filter of politics, selfishness or pure naivety recognize that men and women can only really be friends if there is some powerful impediment in the man’s mind toward consummation of a sexual relationship. As long as he’s gay, or the woman is physically unappealing to him, or he’s deeply committed to someone else, or he has powerful feelings of friendship for her husband, or he thinks of her as a sister, or something like that, he will probably refrain from looking for opportunities to turn the relationship into “something more”. This isn’t to say he might not have sexual fantasies about her or that there won’t be some sexual tension, but as long as there is some counteracting influence in his head the truce can generally be maintained. This article on a recent study looks at what really goes on in the average male mind when there is no such restraining influence:
…Daily experience suggests that non-romantic friendships between males and females are not only possible, but common—men and women live, work, and play side-by-side, and generally seem to be able to avoid spontaneously sleeping together. However…new research suggests that…[though] we may think we’re capable of being “just friends” with members of the opposite sex…the…perceived opportunity…for “romance” is often lurking just around the corner…researchers brought 88 pairs of…opposite-sex friends into…a…testing facility. These friendship pairs were then separated, and each member of each pair was asked a series of questions related to his or her romantic feelings (or lack thereof) toward the friend with whom they were taking the study…Men were much more attracted to their female friends than vice versa…[and] more likely…to think that their…friends were attracted to them…in fact, men’s estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt—basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends. Women, too, were blind to the mindset of their opposite-sex friends;
because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual. As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends. Men were also more willing to act on this mistakenly perceived mutual attraction…
…In a follow-up study, 249 adults (many of whom were married) were asked to list the positive and negative aspects of being friends with a specific member of the opposite sex. Variables related to romantic attraction (e.g., “our relationship could lead to romantic feelings”) were five times more likely to be listed as negative aspects of the friendship than as positive ones. However, the differences between men and women appeared here as well. Males were significantly more likely than females to list romantic attraction as a benefit of opposite-sex friendships, and this discrepancy increased as men aged—males on the younger end of the spectrum were four times more likely than females to report romantic attraction as a benefit of opposite-sex friendships, whereas those on the older end of the spectrum were ten times more likely to do the same…
To a degree, this is one of those “dog bites man” things; I’m sure it comes as absolutely no surprise to my male readers, and though it probably won’t be one to most of my female readers, either, that’s only because most women who would find it hard to believe probably couldn’t handle reading my column every day, either. Unfortunately, there are a lot of women who would not only react to this with shock or disbelief, but would take offense as well; all too many people, a disproportionate number of whom are female, seem to believe that the “purpose” of facts is to make people feel good or to support political agendas, and that indignation is somehow just as valid a reaction to data as acceptance or skepticism.
Regarding the “indignation as a reaction”, Stephen Fry puts it best:
http://i.imgur.com/EX5v4.jpg
So good it’s worth featuring:
A very interesting analysis though I try and separate friendship with the opposite sex from the “something more” and tend to have an emotional state more like that of the “female norm” whether just naturally or from social engineering, it is largely correct.
While I do believe it is possible to be friends with an attractive member of the opposite sex, it can be incredibly difficult work to uphold boundaries as the possibility of feeling the need to seek “something more” is always around the corner. Once there is an obvious barrier, such as lack of attraction (not purely physical I might add), an existing relationship, or a very close friendship, it is much easier to avoid the creation of feelings or the seeking of benefits.
You wrote, “…all too many people…seem to believe… that indignation is somehow just as valid a reaction to data as acceptance or skepticism.” another one of your great thoughts and sentences, Maggie!
Well, you once said(I forgot in which column) that women have at minimum, three distinct states of response to men:
1) Genuine dislike
2) Genuine like and interest with no attraction/desire for romance at all
3) Potential romance
It’s that second one that I didn’t know about until you explained it, and then coupled with the knowledge of so much less testosterone in a woman’s system, it all started to make sense.
I think the confusion comes in where people confuse biology with character. They think that they do what they do, or feel what they feel, solely because of their own internal soulish workings, when sometimes, it’s just their nature influencing their perspective.
But.
Still doesn’t make it any less frustrating to be a man when it comes to this ‘Friend Zone’ area.
This is why I advocate to men that they not make women their friends at best. At the very least, the hurdles and barriers to overcome for becoming a friend to a man if a woman should be higher than a man especially when there aren’t any barriers like she’s the wife or girlfriend of a male relative or male friend, you find her physically or emotionally unattractive for a sexual and/or romantic relationship, you work together in business and you know it’s not wise to mix business with personal and/or pleasure, she is a female relative, you are homosexual etc. There usually needs to be some sort of barrier for the relationship to work. If you as a heterosexual man do have a platonic relationship with no barriers, realize that this is an exception rather than the rule.
At the risk of being scolded or banned from this site, let me say this, and I’ll try to be as pleasant, polite yet truthful about this as possible even though this will be harsh for as much as I try to lessen the harshness of it. A platonic friendship with a woman for a man except for the barriers I listed in the above paragraph, and Maggie McNeill also listed in the above article is usually a waste of time and effort for the man. Sex and possibly romance has to be on the table for the man when having a relationship or friendship with a woman in almost all circumstances. Most exceptions will include the barriers which were listed above. There should be few if any exceptions. A woman in my opinion gains more of what she wants and needs from a platonic relationship with a male than a male gains from it on average. The reason as Maggie states is that the man is not getting the sex or romance that he wants or maybe even needs. The woman still gets a friend which is what she only wanted all along. If you as the man try to have something more than that, then she will most likely become upset, find you creepy, and will downgrade or lessen or outright end the relationship or friendship. The simple fact is that for heterosexual men, a platonic relationship/ friendship except for family or business with a woman offers no more in value than a platonic relationship/ friendship with a man with very few exceptions. Often if not most of the time a platonic relationship/ friendship with a man will be more beneficial to the heterosexual male. Too many women do not understand that the best thing a woman can usually do for a man is to offer him sex, romance and/or children to call his own (if he is responsible enough to care for his children and the mother of his children). What is really even more sad is that too many men in the world especially Western and very especially American men do not understand this mainly because they have not been taught about the true nature of women as well as the true nature of men and how relationships between men and women really work most of the time, men on average aren’t as inherintly good at reading emotional/social cues on average, and neo-feminist ideas that have been taught to boys and girls which are usually totally wrong about the true natures of both men and women and their relationships which leads to neo-feminized emotionally emasculated men.
Let me add that the other aspects of friendship with a woman are wonderful for a heterosexual man, but if their is no familial relationship without sex, business relationship without sex, sex relationship only, romantic relationship coupled with sex or mutual biological or adopted children in the relationship then I regard it as a lousy relationship/ friendship for the man which probably means it will eventually turn lousy for the woman too.
Hmmm …
Do I have female “friends”? Yes, I do but the ones I’m the most “familial” with are the ones I have sex with. I do have a few female friends that I don’t have sex with – but would in a split second if the opportunity presented itself. Sometimes I’ll make friends with a hot secretary because she looks good. I know there is no chance in hell of having sex with her – but I just like looking at her and having her stop by my office to chat and leave her smell in there.
In the Navy – I really didn’t have this problem because I was a proper “professional” about everything. Aside from my wife though – I really didn’t have any friends except for when i was in the war zone – and then you tend to rely on other guys just to survive – and that opens up feelings for them (no – not the sexual kind of feelings there kiddies 🙂 ).
I like physically beautiful and/or emotionally pleasant women too. I know that better looking people especially if they are women and or pleasant people especially if they are women can cloud my judgement, and try not to let this happen. I have platonic female friends too. However, if I develop sexual and/or romantic feelings for them, I’ll downgrade or cut off the relationship. I’m not a masochist, and I advocate that no man be a masochist in this regard and others. Noone can control how he feels but he can control his actions and words. At best women don’t know what spiritual/ emotional maiming mutilation and death they are causing men who sexually desire them and/or have romantic feelings for the women, and the women LJBF, Let’s Just Be Friends, the men. The women gain the emotional support and validation without having to return the favor to the men whether they realize it or not. It is in some respects akin to men paying sex workers such as hostesses(juicy girls in South Korea for example) in hostess(juicy bars) and strippers in the USA for example. Why? It’s masturbation without the payoff. That’s why having as friends with benefits, girlfriend, wife or whore who lets you have sex with her is better for the man. Men get the payoff(erection and ejaculation). At worst, the women do know and willfully choose to be cruel because the man decides to be and act like a fool. The mitigating circumstances are for the sex workers like juicy girls and strippers is that they are girls trying to make a living and most men or certainly a higher percentage of men know they are paying for a fantasy relationship not a real one. These women who know what they are doing are doing it to feel better about themselves. The men who do this are delusional. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result especially when all the other results do not produce a positive result and rather produce neutral or worse negative results.
For a sexually sated male, platonic friendships can be good; certainly cheaper than visiting psychologists. Any problem(s) can be shared with low risk, whereas in a sexual relationship there has to be a certain restraint given that any perceived weakness on the part of the man could destroy that relationship. Also, women can be interesting for their own unique way of looking at things, or simply for their individuality; and for those with an interest in amateur promiscuity it can be useful to have a woman with you when going out.
The artificially engineered sexual shortages in the United States are the main problem here, and they complicate platonic relationships as well as many other areas of life.
I agree.
I have to ask, and I’m not just being cynical here: Have you ever met a male who is truly “sexually sated”? I’m sexually sated for about twenty minutes after I have had sex. And it’s possible (though actually, I doubt it) that during said 20 minutes, I would regard an attractive female only as “friend material.” More likely I’d just concentrate harder to shorten that twenty minutes.
Truly platonic relationships — for me — require that there be an element that works against sexual attraction. Too ugly, too young, too annoying, too stupid, etc. These things, along with a few others, suffice to put out the sexual fire. But frankly, that’s the core of it: fire is the normal state of my sexual being. It has to be put out. It doesn’t need to be started.
Maggie, great column. One of the best I’ve read so far.
One problem for a man having a platonic relationship with woman, is that for most humans, it is the female that puts on the sexual display, at least physically.
While it may not be aimed at him, the secondary sexual characteristics, lipstick, makeup, lift up bra, high heels, etc. are constant reminders that she is a viable sexual partner. Even when the man does not pursue a sexual relationship, it is almost impossible for him not to at least think of it in passing each time they meet.
On a personal level, since I see sexual attractiveness as the bait in the bear trap, it is much easier to place women in my own “friend zone”. I may still look, but if I want bait, I’ll get it from the bait shop, where the price tag is clearly on display.
“On a personal level, since I see sexual attractiveness as the bait in the bear trap, it is much easier to place women in my own “friend zone”.”
-This is my new personal philosophy as well.
“I may still look, but if I want bait, I’ll get it from the bait shop, where the price tag is clearly on display.”
-Best quote ever.
I concur those are brilliant quotations. Stringent adherence to rules of engagement can maintain friendships, but these laws rarely overrule the underlying urge that can easily overwhelm at the slightest lapse of discipline.
The ‘bear trap’ analogy is an apt reminder! 🙂
Good point, but this can be turned around and used to the male’s advantage in social situations. Being seen with a good looking woman is a form of pre-selection and people always assume when you’re with a woman you’re dating her. This has worked for me many times.
Not only that, but being seen with an attractive woman can even make you more attractive to other women.
Positively, I’m always surprised more guys don’t get this. I’ve met several girls I probably wouldn’t have by having a hottie on my arm, even ‘just’ a friend. There ought to be such a specifically targeted service – maybe there is?
I do believe that there is, but I’m not sure what it’s called.
and another problem is when you start to fall in love with them, and sex hasn’t been any part of the reason why. 🙁
Maggie.
Where in blazes can I find a site/blog/article with a comment-thread that is anti-prostitution ?
Can you help ?
All over the place! Nearly any pro-rights article will have a comment thread full of “trafficking” fanatics. Here’s one for starters.
Thank You
http://i94.beon.ru/77/72/2427277/22/89412022/200531_112762798804033_100002109415901_114148_3732533_n.jpeg
At the risk of being bashed as a sexist, I have to ask what you think of women who use this friend disparity to their advantage. In Berlinski’s biography of Thatcher, for example, she claims that Thatcher used some of her political opponents’ and allies’ attraction to her advantage.
I have known a lot of women who like the unresolved tension in male-female relationships. I distinctly remember, many years ago, e-mailing a friend about a female coworker/friend I was interested in who wasn’t interested in me. She replied that we had a perfect relationship, where we were friends with unresolved sexual tension. I didn’t quite see it that way.
Powerful women know how to play all the cards in their deck. Why is that unreasonable, particularly when they’re out to win?
Would you choose to lose if you knew you had an advantage? I wouldn’t, particularly where statecraft is concerned.
Related: I don’t know if it’s staged but College Humor did a funny video a few years ago on this subject. They asked men and women if they could be friends and they said yes. They then asked the women if their guys friends would hook up with them given the chance and they all said, “Oh, yeah, definitely.”
Must be nice to be a woman sometimes.
Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA
I have seen that sort of “category jumping” where a woman did get together with a guy she’d been friends with for years.
My mother has commented that women understand men better (generally), because women traditionally have been socially inferior to men, and therefore derive more benefits from studying men then men do by studying women.
This is a great article and spot on analysis of the male / female friendship dynamic. I do think though, that more women are coming to understand men a bit better. Only problem is, the ones I talk to seem to understand it but don’t like it – and so like to push it out of their minds. You have to keep explaining it to them … until they get angry and shout … “YES I KNOW HOW MEN ARE!!”
Okay then … so what’s the problem?
What I really would like to see – are more studies into the difference in the “love dynamic” of men and women. This is where I don’t think most women are very enlightened. I’ve always been told that women link “love and sex” together while men don’t. I can agree, from my own standpoint, that I don’t link the two exclusively – but I’m not too sure how all this works in women.
I’ve often wondered what it would be like to switch bodies with my wife for just five minutes. I’ve always thought – that she wouldn’t be able to survive the first thirty seconds of the switch before she were crying and begging to get out of my body – and my mind!
Then again – I’m not sure how long I’d survive in her mind either. I think I would find a huge element of motivation missing and the lack of hormonal influence pretty disabling for me. To go from thinking about “tits” to pondering the grocery list – or worse, sorting M&M’s by color (seriously Maggie, ‘sup with THAT?! 😛 )
I remember my wife and I were having sex once, and I had been away for a long time. First time sex after being separated is always best – she’s always heavily in the mood and sometimes uncontrollably so (as am I). Anyway – this time was particularly good and we worked up a lot of heavy breathing and sweat … when we both finished, I “undocked” my spaceship and rolled on to my back … panting. She immediately looked at me and said …
“Hey is there anything in particular you’d like me to pick up at the grocery for you today?”
The deed was “done” … and her mind moved on to the next thing in her life.
This amazes me. After having sex … I couldn’t give a fuck what else is going on in my day.
I often think that the process of “turning a woman on” is simply a battle to empty her mind of all her OTHER worries – so she can concentrate on the sex.
.I often think that the process of “turning a woman on” is simply a battle to empty her mind of all her OTHER worries – so she can concentrate on the sex.
This is very true. So much sex for a female takes place in a mental environment that is full of background noise. The sexologist Susan Crain Bakos wrote an entire book on removing these “mental roadblocks”.
That’s one of the reasons why so many women like bondage; it helps to clear the mind.
I have to meet more women like that. Working on it. Love ropes! 😉
[…] has been beaten to death in the sphere, but this comment by doclove over at the Honest Courtesan really puts it in […]
Data point: A cursory memory-search suggests that I’ve crushed on every close female friend I’ve ever had, even as a child, even online where purely physical attraction wasn’t in play. And more of my close friends have been women than men.
Sometime within the last few years I decided I’d make a point of not trying to hide that, but general social isolation has kept me from seeing just how that affects things.
But…but…but…
I LOVE these relationships. My husband has a number of younger male colleagues that spend time here, and a few of them have become quite close friends. Aboslutely, I find these guys sexually appealing. I wouldn’t ACT on those impulses for a number of reasons:
I couldn’t bear to hurt my husband
He would kill the guy
He would beat the shit out of me (which I would deserve)
I would lose the friendships, obviously
I wouldn’t like myself very much as a person
But the flirty tension is FUN! It’s very affirming, and I don’t care who you are, having men you like acknowledge that they find you appealing is just a huge ego massage.
I guess it comes down to self-control. That, and a healthy respect for a 6’2, 220lb husband
🙂
It’s a lot of fun, but how do the men see it? Their feelings matter too.
I mean, I’m sure you know that, but some women I think have fallen for the idea that men don’t really have feelings.
They flirt right back, and by “flirt” I mean pretty innocuous stuff. My husband is right there! So obviously nothing inappropriate!
Example: BigMike just had a baby (squee! So cute!), so I said to him “come spring you can be the hot dad with a baby at the park (wink)”.
He is hot! A flirty acknowledgement of that just seems like good fun, and I COUNT on the guys having feelings!
As long as he’s done what I sad at the end of my reply below (the one where I talk about Tracy), it sounds like good clean fun to me.
done what I SAID at the end of my reply below
That way, he won’t be SAD.
“but some women I think have fallen for the idea that men don’t really have feelings.”
This right here, exactly.
“basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual … females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual.”
Empathy, walking around in someone else’s moccasins. All useful stuff. But in reality the general assumption that everybody else sees things the same way we do tends to rule the day, even in the face of persistent evidence to the contrary.
Maggie, I can understand if you would rather avoid the subject since it doesn’t directly affect the plight of whores and sex workers, but in light of today’s tragedy, do you want to talk about gun control? I’m not a “gun nut”, but from reading your blog I know that a lot of bad laws have been enacted in the name of protecting children.
All laws imposed on individuals by collectives without the consent of those individuals, except for prohibitions against doing violence against others, are morally wrong. Some are “necessary evils“, but laws against objects do not fall into that category, nor do laws which punish the good for the offenses of the evil or mad. It is not possible to create Utopia, and the sooner everyone learns that the better; every law designed to “prevent tragedy” is a PATRIOT Act or Swedish model, and does far more harm than good no matter what the government which enacted it claims. The problem is that loss of liberty and thousands quietly rounded up and jailed, brutalized, murdered, robbed or just spied upon does not make the news like two dozen murdered in one place at one time does.
Here’s some thought for a future column—has anybody done a study to see how many of these shootings are tied to sexual frustration or jealousy? In other words, places where it is much harder for males to obtain sexual relief are more violent than places where more males are sexually sated.
And for those who might jump on me saying that nobody going into a classroom and kills 20 kids because he wasn’t getting laid, we’ll probably never know what set him off. Besides, I’m not just talking about what happened in Connecticut but at the bigger picture.
There’s strong evidence that sexual violence increases with male sexual frustration, but I don’t believe anyone’s ever studied it in relation to either violence in general or spectacular acts of non-sexual violence like mass shootings. I do feel compelled to point out, however, that some of the most violent areas of the world are those with shortages of women.
When I get a minute I’ll take whatever data I can scrounge on sex ratios and violence and see if they’re related.
China is a pretty good example; as the female shortage becomes ever worse, so attacks on schools have been happening with greater frequency. Just two days ago, Min Yingjun slashed 22 elementary school children with a knife.
When is prohibition EVER the answer? Drugs? Yeah, that war on drugs surely has been effective at reducing consumption and violence. Prohibition (of booze?) Thought we might have learned something as a nation from that when the war on drugs was proposed.
Maybe some education? Understanding? Zen? Personal responsibility?
And raising our own children vs. letting xbox modern warfare, mass/violent media, minimum wage day caretakers, etc. do it would be a good start.
Prohibiting things works when in order to do it you need to interact with someone who objects to the process. In other worse, prohibiting things with victims.
worse? umm. words
What most men don’t understand is they are just an “Ice Cream in the Hand”, but the see themselves as a well served dish with sprinkles on top.
You have seen me mention Tracy before. Her name and image were constantly before me as I read Maggie’s blog post of December 14th, 2012.
Tracy and I get along much better now that I’m not trying to be her boyfriend. Today we are just friends, and that works for us. And yet, I suspect that “just friends” still means different things for us. I’ve always wanted to have sex with her, and still would in a heartbeat (her little sister too, but obviously I don’t talk about that). Tracy, however, has never wanted to have sex with me. Not sure she wants to have sex with anybody, but she sure as flaming hell doesn’t want to have it with me.
OTOH, she actually enjoys the compliments and leading remarks, now that we both understand (and both understand that the other understands) that this isn’t going to lead to any sex. She and Laura get along fine, and Laura has given her blessing to my having sex with Tracy, and blessing she can easily give, since it isn’t going to happen.
I feel that Billy Crystal as Harry Burns was correct in that the sex thing is always there, but in truth, just friends can work. However, both sides have to do something a bit unnatural: he has to accept that it isn’t going to happen, and she has to accept that he wants it. And both have to tell themselves: “and that’s OK.”
Ladies. Here are how you screw a guys mind up…
Start hanging out with someone and let him know you are separated (even if you really aren’t).
Tell him how you are a great catch and that you like strong men who don’t talk, but just act on their emotions.
Tell him about how you’ve been hit on by others, and that you would have done something if you knew your marriage was failing.
Call him out of the blue to go for drinks and dinner, repeating items 2 &3 each time over the next 24 months.
Every time you tell a story, touch him and rub his arm or shoulder.
Put on that damn cute look on your face when you get worked up about something. You know, the one that makes you look so friggin adorable.
When he finally walks you to your car, tells you he likes you, gets up enough nerve to lean in and give you a kiss; get out of the car, put your arms around him, kiss him on the lips, push your tongue in to his mouth; and then…
Stop talking to him for months, regardless of how hard he is trying to find out what is going on.
Yeah. Push your tongue down my throat, and then tell me that I am the one who crossed the line…
Dude. Welcome to Uncle Scorch’s School of Man Training.
You were a Plan C+. What that means is you’re just practice. You were just someone that she was keeping her feminine wiles sharpened on, practicing her flirting, her coyness, keeping herself sharp, and it worked. But it’s just practice for her, so when the one she really wants comes along, she’ll be ready. She’ll know how to smile, what to say, what to wear, to get the male response that she wanted, because she tested all that out on *you.*
The reason I said C+ and not just C was because at least you did get a kiss. Straight Plan C’s don’t get much physical play beyond the flirtatious touching.
*sigh* It’s a hard lesson. But one we need to learn nevertheless.
And then, she wonders why you’re upset. I mean God, it’s not like I said I loved you or anything! 🙁
I disagree with this post. Based on my experience, the way men and women respond to heterosexual friendships is very similar in nature. Out of the 100s of women I have known in my life, only ones who gave a “real friendship” with me a try were the ones who were very clearly attracted to me in more than just a friends way.
What I mean by “real friendship” is that both parties are interested in each others lives, they both talk about their issues, happiness etc. and not that only one party talks about it.
When I tried to be friends with women who weren’t really attracted to me, they would never really ask me anything and usually just went on talking about their own lives. Basically it would be a one-sided friendship.
The only difference between girls friend-zoning a guy and guy doing it is that since girls never explicitly make a move on you, a guy never really has to have an unpleasant “I don’t see you that way conversation” and you can pretend that the subtle moves she makes like touch you, sit next to you, stand close to you etc. are all friendly gestures.
Looks like the study was in the US using 88 undergraduate students. I have to question results of a study a small sample pulled from a small pool. I thinks it likely the average age of undergraduates, 18-22, to have more to do with the results than general psychology. On the Scientific American article I see a lot of commentary questioning the methodology as well.
I wish this could be compared between cultures or time frames though.
I wonder how much the results could be related to the highly repressed nature of American society. I can see societal norms causing females to answer they have lower attraction than they may have, since it’s thought unseemly for a woman to show attraction. I could also see males who have to repress their sexuality but with a stronger sexual drive being overly fixated on sex & attraction.
One thing your wording made me think of was benefits. Maybe the mass schooling systems, where an individuals interests are never fostered could cause these results. When the students aren’t able to spend time developing interests to interact with members of the opposite sex over, what benefit CAN they get out of the interaction besides sexual?
I agree with much of the article, though I disagree with the inference that ‘with benefits’ means that friendship alone is incomplete. It seems to me that the benefits are bundled alongside. Like, I’ve heard ‘friendly acquaintance with benefits’, and there’s no way that benefits are integral to being an acquaintance, even a friendly one.
For us males, the sex things, the friend things and the relationship things often live in seperable boxes. Sure, you serialise enough sex things with enough social things and it’s less distinct, but there’s a tendency in the male gendered brain to compartmentalize.
So we’re perfectly comfortable “stacking boxes” with the friend box at the bottom of the stack. That’s standard male operating procedure if we’re not just looking at a whambamthankyoumaam approach; this is where the sex box sits on it’s own. A guy happy to do that won’t stack a friend box on the sex box; it’s an unstable tower.
So this is why friendzone is such a pain; friend is the female equivalent (in our mind) to the sex box; it’s standalone, and the sex box doesn’t stack on it. It seems that for the ladies, the relationship box is the starter, the sex box goes next, and in exceptional cases the friend box might go on the top, capping out the stack for a lady’s permanent partnership. And for guys, that seems reeealy odd.
Here’s the thing : I get the impression that, for the ladies, real friends dont have any secrets you keep from each other if it tops off a stack which is why the friend box seems wierd to us guys. The definition is fluid. We don’t do fuzzy logic as a general rule.
But sometimes it does stall, as mentioned above.
I have two friends, married. We’ll call them N(m) and B(f). I’ve known N since 6th form (high school) and B since before they were married.
I’d give N a kidney, and marry B in a heartbeat. Everybody gets it. N is a stand up guy who trusts B. B for her part, doesn’t reciprocate to me. It’s a stable, locked, triangular configuration. They are, beyond question, my best friends.
I keep joking that I need a cloning machine, but knowing my luck, B2 would fall for N as well. Lucky boy 😉