Can women and men just be friends?

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Also agreed that modern western society puts a pretty unrealistic expectation on young men regarding how they are "supposed" to think about women. It almost seems to demand that we become contextually asexual.

I also believe that western society puts unrealistic expectations on women's sexuality as well. Despite supposed sexual liberation, women are still expected not to obviously admit that they like sex, least of all to men, and the least to the man they would like to sleep with. To openly admit such a thing is as good as admitting to be a whore. (It's only acceptable to admit to having sex in a relationship.) That's why men are forced into a situation with women where they have to imagine some premise other than getting laid, while dating them. Everyone knows this open secret, but all seem more content to dance around it.

If our society was truly as liberated as we'd like to believe, women would not have to have an anti-slut defense. They would also have no hesitation about asking men out, rather than the other way around always having to be the case. And women complain about this all the time, yet seem oblivious to a solution. Many have feigned this sexual disinterest so long that they fool themselves. I couldn't tell you how many dates I've been on where the girl was claiming that there would be no hanky panky while I'm undressing her.

You have to be willing to make a move (and telling you loved them for years isn't it), and risk losing the friendship. A woman likes to feel like they are sexually attractive.

I would like to affirm this as well. Women want the man to make sexual advances, and since they have to pretend disinterest, they will instead put themselves in a position where the man can make them. If you as a man fail to take the hint, and don't take what is offered, you will quickly lose a woman's respect. She will think of you as probably less than gay, maybe asexual, and certainly not manly enough to do her.

 

[Yared]

I am facing a dilemma in my menial existence. I spend the majority of my time with a group of lads who are amazing fun and have made my university life over the past three years a blast. A few of them, especially, I have been particularly close to, in a perfectly innocent manner (or so I thought...)
However, I am now leaving Brighton and leaving these boys behind. Most of them are staying on to apply to Drama school, start film companies or just bum about working etc etc. This has prompted THREE of them now to declare they have feelings for me beyond a friend, two of whom have told me they're totally in love with me.
I was always under the impression that men and women could be just friends without any complication as long as it started out that way. I'm starting to think otherwise.
What are your opinions on this? Can women and men avoid all the problems of a 'normal' friendship or is there always going to be that sexual tension involved?
I put it to you, panel!

Actually, it's possible for there to be sexual tension in a friendship without the girl and guy harbouring any romantic feelings. It's the "OMG dude I gotta introduce you to my girlfriends" type of friendship.

Also, the "men and women could be just friends without any complication as long as it started out that way." only exists in the minds of women. It's called the friend-zone, and guys hate it for a reason .

 

[otago]

Friends with women, yep some I have known for decades, four of them whom I had been in relationships with which had run their courses.
But meet a woman when I was single who I was attracted to and tell her I only wanted her friendship, now to me that would be an insult to her.

 

[Farm Boy]

I also believe that western society puts unrealistic expectations on women's sexuality as well.

Oh no doubt. I often wonder if the necessity of the "slut-defense" is due to biological nature putting women in the role of sexual gatekeepers. The baseline assumption, often true, is that a male if free from social repercussion will almost always be willing to convert a male/female platonic relationship into a sexual one, especially if emotional capital has already been spent to cultivate a relationship.

 

[Yared]

I think that the anti-slut defence was partly created as a way to protect women. For a woman, if she was impregnated there was the scary scenario of being forced to take care of another human being for the next ~15 years, whether or not the guy sticks around. A man, however, has the option to just abandon the woman and the kid.

So for a woman, there were/are a lot more risks involved with sex. Therefore, "daughter, it is bad to be very sexually active".

 

[Cheetah]

Doesn't make any sense Yared. An anti-slut defence is useless once a woman has already been impregnated. Raising the anti-slut defence only helps in not being labeled a slut. If a woman don't want to be stuck with a kid, she must be careful with sex itself - not her reputation.

The anti-slut defence is for the woman to protect herself from being labeled a slut.

A slut will have much greater trouble in getting a man to stick around, which is really undesirable if the woman is with kids.

Men are much less likely to stick around with a slut because a slut will be too likely to have sex with other men. Which means a man could be stuck spending his resources on another man's offspring. Better then to ditch the slut and go out looking for yet another slut to impregnate (if you impregnate a hundred women, then - even if you don't take care of any of your offspring - chances are some of your offspring will still grow up) or a woman who isn't a slut, as then you'll be more sure that the kids will be yours.

It's simple evolution. And while I do appreciate the concern Farm Boy and Nanocyborgasm raises about women being labeled sluts, I'm not sure if there is any easy way to change it.

 

[Yared]

Aha, I get your point Cheetah. I suppose what I was saying applies to how women behave generally and not just in regards to being branded as a slut.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Doesn't make any sense Yared. An anti-slut defence is useless once a woman has already been impregnated. Raising the anti-slut defence only helps in not being labeled a slut. If a woman don't want to be stuck with a kid, she must be careful with sex itself - not her reputation.

The anti-slut defence is for the woman to protect herself from being labeled a slut.

A slut will have much greater trouble in getting a man to stick around, which is really undesirable if the woman is with kids.

Men are much less likely to stick around with a slut because a slut will be too likely to have sex with other men. Which means a man could be stuck spending his resources on another man's offspring. Better then to ditch the slut and go out looking for yet another slut to impregnate (if you impregnate a hundred women, then - even if you don't take care of any of your offspring - chances are some of your offspring will still grow up) or a woman who isn't a slut, as then you'll be more sure that the kids will be yours.

It's simple evolution. And while I do appreciate the concern Farm Boy and Nanocyborgasm raises about women being labeled sluts, I'm not sure if there is any easy way to change it.

All these concerns would be valid if it weren't for the widespread availability of cheap contraception.

 

[Junius]

Doesn't make any sense Yared. An anti-slut defence is useless once a woman has already been impregnated. Raising the anti-slut defence only helps in not being labeled a slut. If a woman don't want to be stuck with a kid, she must be careful with sex itself - not her reputation.

The anti-slut defence is for the woman to protect herself from being labeled a slut.

A slut will have much greater trouble in getting a man to stick around, which is really undesirable if the woman is with kids.

Men are much less likely to stick around with a slut because a slut will be too likely to have sex with other men. Which means a man could be stuck spending his resources on another man's offspring. Better then to ditch the slut and go out looking for yet another slut to impregnate (if you impregnate a hundred women, then - even if you don't take care of any of your offspring - chances are some of your offspring will still grow up) or a woman who isn't a slut, as then you'll be more sure that the kids will be yours.

It's simple evolution. And while I do appreciate the concern Farm Boy and Nanocyborgasm raises about women being labeled sluts, I'm not sure if there is any easy way to change it.

Pretty much what i was thinking. To "liberate" women like some have suggested would require changing human nature.

 

[Yared]

All these concerns would be valid if it weren't for the widespread availability of cheap contraception.

Well, he did say it wasn't going to be easy. Just because we have contraception right now doesn't mean that part of human behaviour is gonna disappear.

For example, I know - on a logical level - that I can walk up to pretty much any female stranger without any repercussions*. But back in the day, if I walked up to a girl, these things were risks:
1) Other males could come and beat me up for trying to talk to her.
2) If I were to fail and be disregarded as a loser, none of the other females in the group would want me, therefore making me very unlikely of having offspring.

Which is why I, or any other male for that matter, will feel nervous walking up to a female stranger. With practice, it is possible to negate this feeling and disregard it, but it'll always be there.

*Okay, I'm lying. There's always the risk of some jealous ex-boyfriend waiting around the corner with a gun.

 

[Boundless]

All these concerns would be valid if it weren't for the widespread availability of cheap contraception.

Cheap? In the UK we get it for free!

*Okay, I'm lying. There's always the risk of some jealous ex-boyfriend waiting around the corner with a gun.

Too true, or ex-gf for that matter!

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Ultimately , it's not the concept of male / female friendship that is questionable . It's the maturity of the parties involved that is . (not the OP specifically of course ) . I would be genuinely heartbroken if my friendship with a few girls ever ended

 

[GenMarshall]

I nominate Yared to be the one to start a general dating advice thread.

 

[LucyDuke]

Cheap? In the UK we get it for free!

...



My fellow Americans really piss me off sometimes.

 

[timtofly]

...



My fellow Americans really piss me off sometimes.

We just like to capitalize on everything.

 

[SuperJay]

Because if we gave away free contraception, it could hurt the private sector and cost jobs!

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

More like population control. UK have somewhere around 717 sq miles in density out of 80 million. USA on the other hand, have around 87 sq miles in density out of 300 million. We got enough room.

 

[downtown]

You can get free condoms in the states too, they just prob wont be as good.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Condom sucks. It get in the way, dude.

 

[Cheetah]

All these concerns would be valid if it weren't for the widespread availability of cheap contraception.

Except we all know that evolution doesn't work that fast.

Our instincts and feelings have not adapted to modern life.