Can a guy have female friends?

[bitcoin]

Well I just want to say my experience which is... Recently, I have only had girl friends (girls that are friends). I dont have a single guy friend. Never really had, that was a real friend. I have, on the other hand, had real friends that are girls. Not sure how this helps or what is means but that has been my experience, oddly.

[Eva]

Hi Eva, I'm curious what you mean by these terms being exploitative exactly. And what are your thoughts on the terms 'wife' or 'girlfriend'?

 

They imply human ownership and, with their emphasis on sexual fidelity, they reproduce the original parent-child biological attachment relationship—which is not good.

 

"Wife" and "girlfriend"—and their masculines—are 'a priori' concepts that are imposed over the reality of people because they have a dysfunctional need to own others and feel owned, which comes from their having been owned by their parents... They are anti-philosophical concepts.

[emilia]

If I am attracted, then I just know that I'm never going to be satisfied with friendship. It's never going to work for me and I'm either going to pursue it romantically or drift apart pretty quickly. If I'm not attracted, but she is, then I find it difficult personally to know what is leading her on or not. Maybe other people don't have that problem, but I've been accused of it a couple times. So generally I stay away from friendships with females, unless I know there is no attraction either way and I actually enjoy spending time with them. This hasn't happened since high school for me... I'd be happy to have female friends, but there's a significant issue of attraction to consider that you don't have to think about with guy friends. All the guys I've talked to about it have had similar experiences / attitude. Women I've talked to about it don't seem to think it's that big of a deal whether or not there is attraction. That seems so weird to me, but maybe that's because I'm missing something. I don't know.

If you are not satisfied with friendship with someone who you are romantically interested in, then what you are saying is that you value sex (or romance) more than friendship, no?If you are friends with a woman that is attracted to you, and you are worried about leading her on, can you not have an honest discussion with her about it? I think it's interesting that you say that women who you have talked to about this topic, don't think it is a big deal whether or not there is attraction, but still you think it's necessary to not be friends with women who are attracted to you, because you are afraid of leading them on. I find that contradictory.

[emilia]

Incapable of working through feelings? Uh, I guess that's one way to put it. Another might be not wanting to torture yourself by being around someone you are attracted to who will never feel the same way about you. It's one thing if she's already unavailable (married or lesbian for example) but if not then the implication is that you don't meet her standards in one way or another. I don't know how any self-respecting man could stay in a relationship like that, where the woman thinks you are deficient in some way. I would either want to meet that standard or drop the relationship because the emotional turmoil would be too great. To continue my analogy beyond the point of usefulness : Of course I would refuse to get the car! Then I would go to another dealership where I could get what I wanted plus the upgrades. Otherwise I would be thinking, "Why couldn't I get them? I thought I had the money that I needed, but apparently it wasn't good enough for the salesman".

If whether or not the woman is available influences the amount of torture you feel, then what tortures you is clearly not the attraction you feel, but the impact that the woman not being interested in you, has on your self esteem. So clearly the problem is, like JohnH. said, that you don't want to work through the feelings that rejection brings out in you. I think it's the opposite of what you say: you need to have self respect to still be able to interact with someone who finds you deficient in some way, otherwise you will feel a desire to get away from them. Remember that all the qualities that made you like that person to begin with, are still there and the only thing that has changed is that she has rejected you romantically. If the reasons you liked her were genuine, and the main reason for your interest was not the way she makes you feel about yourself but your respect for her, you will have no reason to stop interacting with her.About the car analogy. If you value someones company so much that you would want to have a romantic relationship with them, isn't that a rare situation, especially amongst FDR people? It doesn't make any sense to walk away from them, just because they won't have sex with you.

[Kevin Beal]

If you are not satisfied with friendship with someone who you are romantically interested in, then what you are saying is that you value sex (or romance) more than friendship, no?If you are friends with a woman that is attracted to you, and you are worried about leading her on, can you not have an honest discussion with her about it? I think it's interesting that you say that women who you have talked to about this topic, don't think it is a big deal whether or not there is attraction, but still you think it's necessary to not be friends with women who are attracted to you, because you are afraid of leading them on. I find that contradictory.

I value a romantic relationship over a platonic one, yes. Don't you?

 

I think I mistyped the bit about what ladies feel about it. And I concede that point anyway.

 

I don't know what the hell I think about it all right now. I know there is that part of me that hates seeing unrequited love, but maybe that's not really something I can spare myself or others from.

 

Probably the thing I want more than anything else in the world, is to fall in love. I tend to put barriers in the way of that, and it would be a shame if that's what I were doing here. That friendship may grow into a love relationship for all I know. Or maybe I will be satisfied with friendship when my love is unrequited (even if it wasn't the case in the past). I don't know, what do you think?

 

I'm open to any criticism or advice you may have.

[cynicist]

If whether or not the woman is available influences the amount of torture you feel, then what tortures you is clearly not the attraction you feel, but the impact that the woman not being interested in you, has on your self esteem. 

 

The availability affects how bad I feel not because of how I feel about myself, but how the woman feels about me. In other words I can still feel good about myself and my qualities, it's just that she either doesn't see them or doesn't agree, and that's the hurtful part. (and she could be right, in that her standards could be different from mine, the point is that if it's not something that I can see and improve on then there's no hope of a relationship and a friendship is going to be awkward from then on due to that knowledge) 

 

 I think it's the opposite of what you say: you need to have self respect to still be able to interact with someone who finds you deficient in some way, otherwise you will feel a desire to get away from them.

 

I want to be clear here, we're all deficient. (I fall short of my own standards) I'm talking about when that deficiency prevents a romantic relationship or friendship from being a possibility in the eyes of the other person. Personally, it sounds masochistic to try and continue from there. I'd rather just find relationships where mutual respect/value is possible.

 

If the reasons you liked her were genuine, and the main reason for your interest was not the way she makes you feel about yourself but your respect for her, you will have no reason to stop interacting with her.

 

You know what I thought of when you brought that up? Stalker. I don't think it's healthy to be interested in someone that isn't also interested in me to the same degree. If we both want to be friends, great. If we both want to be lovers, awesome. If one of us wants one thing and the other wants something else, I just see problems.

 

(I could be completely wrong, this isn't science or anything, I'm just thinking out loud here)

[Aaron727]

Fat girls make great friends.

 

June 9th 2014 edit: I'm sorry for being insensitive. 

[emilia]

I value a romantic relationship over a platonic one, yes. Don't you?

 

I think I mistyped the bit about what ladies feel about it. And I concede that point anyway.

 

I don't know what the hell I think about it all right now. I know there is that part of me that hates seeing unrequited love, but maybe that's not really something I can spare myself or others from.

 

Probably the thing I want more than anything else in the world, is to fall in love. I tend to put barriers in the way of that, and it would be a shame if that's what I were doing here. That friendship may grow into a love relationship for all I know. Or maybe I will be satisfied with friendship when my love is unrequited (even if it wasn't the case in the past). I don't know, what do you think?

 

I'm open to any criticism or advice you may have.

Sure, I value a romantic relationship over a platonic one. But I also value a friendship over no relationship. If you choose to not be friends with someone, because you are interested in her romantically but she is not in you (but would still want to be friends), you must value sex over friendship, because if you didn't, you would choose the friendship no matter what. And that doesn't make sense to me, because a friendship is the most important part of a romantic relationship, isn't it? The rest of it is sexual in one form or another.

 

I'm not completely certain of my logic above, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I don't have clear thoughts on this besides what I already said. I do think you are going towards a right direction with your thoughts. And I'm quite certain that in the future you will be satisfied with friendship if your love is unrequited. That has been my experience (though I am a woman), that it will be very difficult at first, but you will get over it and value the friendship with someone you think is great. At least for me, I eventually stop feeling attracted, because I know nothing is going to happen. But most importantly you have the help of self knowledge.

 

I think those feelings you have around unrequited love, are connected to childhood, and it would be better to feel them and analyse them, than avoid them. Not saying it will be easy...

[PatrickC]

They imply human ownership and, with their emphasis on sexual fidelity, they reproduce the original parent-child biological attachment relationship—which is not good.

 

"Wife" and "girlfriend"—and their masculines—are 'a priori' concepts that are imposed over the reality of people because they have a dysfunctional need to own others and feel owned, which comes from their having been owned by their parents... They are anti-philosophical concepts.

 

I mostly find human ownership as being a tax payer and not generally my friends and lovers. Your argument reminds me of some feminist rhetoric I've read, whereby it was seen in the past that women were in hock to their husband throughout their life. I believe it was this kind of thinking that led to, 'no fault' divorce being eventually introduced. However, your position is slightly different, insofar as you believe the relationship enslaves both parties, male and female. Would I be right in understanding that you think comittment is the enslaving part?

 

I find it fascinating that you think this way, partly because a large part of this forum is dedicated to understanding interpersonal relationships. In particular the voluntary nature of those relationships. Including having a deep understanding for empathy and virtue. Therefore it would figure that any enslavement you had in a relationship would be your own enslavement. Since the only relationship anyone is bound too are young children to their parents.

 

Personally when I eventually marry, I will willingly serve my wife. But not as some grovelling schmuck. But because by the time we both get to the point of marriage, we would both know that we wanted to be together for the long haul. The relationship would have been cemented in reciprocity and a deep trust. You can only have those kinds of relationships by offering such a commitment to eachother. Of course marriage doesn't have to be the legal kind we are faced with today. But making a committment would be the key part, however which way you did it.

If you choose to not be friends with someone, because you are interested in her romantically but she is not in you (but would still want to be friends), you must value sex over friendship, because if you didn't, you would choose the friendship no matter what. And that doesn't make sense to me, because a friendship is the most important part of a romantic relationship, isn't it? The rest of it is sexual in one form or another..

 

This is a strawman. The choice isn't sex or friendship. The choice to kevin is romantic relationship or no romantic relationship.

[cynicist]

Sure, I value a romantic relationship over a platonic one. But I also value a friendship over no relationship. If you choose to not be friends with someone, because you are interested in her romantically but she is not in you (but would still want to be friends), you must value sex over friendship, because if you didn't, you would choose the friendship no matter what. And that doesn't make sense to me, because a friendship is the most important part of a romantic relationship, isn't it? The rest of it is sexual in one form or another.

 

I'm not completely certain of my logic above, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Well what you are saying is true if you think sex is the only difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship. I think the difference in intimacy is not just physical. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but with a partner your lives are intertwined in a way that a friendship is not. Sex and children have a lot to do with it but it's also seeing each other every day and sharing all your dreams/hopes/fears. (which might be overwhelming with a friend, or confusing for a female friend when it's coming from a man  )

 

I think those feelings you have around unrequited love, are connected to childhood, and it would be better to feel them and analyse them, than avoid them. Not saying it will be easy...

 

Why jump to this conclusion? The feeling that young children have towards their parents would be more accurately described as attachment, and by the time we can feel love most of us have already been too traumatized to feel that way about our caregivers... unrequited love is certainly not how I would describe what I felt as a child towards my mother. (in fact I can say I've never felt that way about anyone I've met in my personal life so far) Maybe Kevin feels differently.

[Kevin Beal]

Thanks for the response Emilia!

 

I don't think romantic relationships are friendship + sex. I don't snuggle with my guy friends for example. And also, yes, sex is important. Maybe that's not mature or wise of me to say or whatever, but I think it's a pretty big deal.

 

As far as having unprocessed history goes:

 

I was in the middle of an unrequited love relationship for more than a decade. At least, that's what I always thought. My mother divorced my father, apparently without warning and the only reason ever given was in private to him and not the children ("I just want to see other people"). He obviously hated and loved her for a long time. He never dated again, save for a brief stint shortly after the divorce, with a woman I didn't hear about until much later. Unfortunately, I got a lot of weird, creepy alienation of affection stuff from both sides of the ugly bitter divorce.

 

My father never let go of it (I believe) and recently lived in a disgusting trailer with his body falling apart in terrible poverty until he was moved into an old folks home of some kind. Before that, he was a successful entrepreneur and real estate investor supporting 10 children.

 

My thinking as a child was probably something like "mom is good, so good women can destroy men's lives without warning and everyone praises her for it". As you can imagine, I have been very cautious when it comes to dating, and even my own feelings about particular girls growing up, I would try to suppress. This has irritated people most of my life who wanted me to date a friend they had or ask someone out because I had done so much as look in her direction. But the stakes have always felt high.

 

So, I absolutely do have some baggage. I'm more than willing to go there.

 

I still stand behind the unrequited love thing. And apparently it's not just me or a portion of the male population, it's also Karen Straghan (GirlWritesWhat).

 

She also comments on this phenomena where a guy is into a girl and then gets frustrated when she doesn't reciprocate, and how that all escalates into mutual resentment. I don't know if that's anything you are saying, but what you said reminded me of how guys who resent the friend zone are sometimes portrayed as being immature and jerks for "settling" for friendship. I don't think that's accurate at all and she explains it very well in this video:

 

[Eva]

 Would I be right in understanding that you think comittment is the enslaving part?

 

 

No. The enslaving part is wanting to have a "relationship" as a concept before the fact and, as I said, introducing the biological/sexual fidelity requirement—which is largely an unjustified restriction of someone's freedom to do whatever they want with their male or female bodies.

You mistake this fidelity for commitment; I can commit in all sorts of ways to someone, not just sexually. To me, the fact that this element is given this much importance just comes to show how far the marriage/girlfriend concept is from a rational definition of love. 

 

I find it fascinating that you think this way, partly because a large part of this forum is dedicated to understanding interpersonal relationships. In particular the voluntary nature of those relationships. Including having a deep understanding for empathy and virtue. Therefore it would figure that any enslavement you had in a relationship would be your own enslavement. 

 

Choosing your own enslavement does not make it moral, especially when there are children involved. I am sure there are many statists and religious people engaged in understanding empathy and virtue, and that does not excuse them either.

Since the only relationship anyone is bound too are young children to their parents.

 

 

This is not true. Parents enslave their children. 

 

This is a strawman. The choice isn't sex or friendship. The choice to kevin is romantic relationship or no romantic relationship.

 

It is not a strawman; she is right. And Kevin strawmans himself:

 

Thanks for the response Emilia!

 

I don't think romantic relationships are friendship + sex. I don't snuggle with my guy friends for example.

 

He does not seek a romantic relationship with his guy friends..

I just wanted to add that I am very sorry for you guys feeling this way towards women. There is a certain amount of hatred (toward your parents) still in wanting to own a partner; and she or he is not to be blamed for your self attacking about their actual or potential choices—which is what the "commitment" around sexuality is basically protecting. I really hope you get over this fear of the other sex by pursuing relationships that are truly free; though I completely understand it is not easy.

[PatrickC]

No. The enslaving part is wanting to have a "relationship" as a concept before the fact and, as I said, introducing the biological/sexual fidelity requirement—which is largely an unjustified restriction of someone's freedom to do whatever they want with their male or female bodies.

You mistake this fidelity for commitment; I can commit in all sorts of ways to someone, not just sexually. To me, the fact that this element is given this much importance just comes to show how far the marriage/girlfriend concept is from a rational definition of love. 

 

You know it's interesting, since I never suggested commitment was about sexual fidelity. Commitment is far more than just sex. It's about raising children. providing support and trust. As I say relationships are entirely voluntary and any obligations you place upon one another is entirely to their discretion.

 

However, the evidence suggests that married people are happier than unmarried people. That married people are often wealthier than single people. Children thrive better with both parents and an extended supportive family. That said, I have been in dysfunctional relationships in the past, where all the above was true and indeed I ended those relationships as a result of that.

 

To conflate that to 'all' relationships as being enslaving, then I can only assume that you have never had a deep bond with anyone and for that I'm truly sorry. On a final aside, there is nothing moral or immoral about relationships. In UPB terms you are free to choose any kind of relationship you like and always be free from any moral condemnation.

This is not true. Parents enslave their children. 

 

That's exactly what I said was a possibility, in not so many words.

[Eva]

 In UPB terms you are free to choose any kind of relationship you like and always be free from any moral condemnation.

 

 

Is that right? Are you free to choose a relationship where you rape a woman every day and be morally exempt? Do you not think there are women who would voluntarily agree to that? The do all the time when they marry abusive husbands in full knowledge...

 

 

That's exactly what I said was the possibility, in not so many words

 

No it isn't. You said children "are bound". Rocks "are bound" by gravity is not the same as rocks are held.

You know it's interesting, since I never suggested commitment was about sexual fidelity. Commitment is far more than just sex. It's about raising children. providing support and trust. As I say relationships are entirely voluntary and any obligations you place upon one another is entirely to their discretion.

 

 

Just like you cannot rationally justify restricting someone's sexual freedom you cannot justify the ownership of children within a monogamous family, which is an immorality, and exactly the root of the problem you have.

[PatrickC]

Now you're just trolling me.. This isn't a conversation anymore.

[emilia]

She also comments on this phenomena where a guy is into a girl and then gets frustrated when she doesn't reciprocate, and how that all escalates into mutual resentment. I don't know if that's anything you are saying, but what you said reminded me of how guys who resent the friend zone are sometimes portrayed as being immature and jerks for "settling" for friendship. I don't think that's accurate at all and she explains it very well in this video:

That was not friendship that was described on the video. She was talking about situations where men are being used by women. And they also let themselves be used. If the women you know are like that, then I absolutely understand why you wouldn't want to be friends with them. But it is also possible to have normal friendship between a man and a woman, where neither of the people is using the other. Women are capable of that too..And maybe it's obvious, but it's not like those relationships described on the video, would have been any healthier if they were having sex.And I'm in no way saying that sex is not important. I think it is.I'm not sure about this, but I think given your history, it would be really good for you to spend more time with women.

[Kevin Beal]

I'm not sure about this, but I think given your history, it would be really good for you to spend more time with women.

That's very interesting. I'd love to hear more if you don't mind. I don't know how you know so much about me, but I would like to understand.

 

And it's not like I'm never around women. I just want to be clear about that. I don't want to give the impression that they aren't in my life. My therapist is a woman, my roommate, half my co-workers, some friendly acquaintances and I'm a big fan of my best friends fiancé. I grew up in a female dominated household. I have nothing against women. I quite like women. Some of my favorite people are women.

 

I don't know what image you have of me, but I felt like clarifying that in case you pictured me as some vaguely misogynistic hermit who avoids spending time with women.

 

And you're right that it's not the same sense of the word "friendship". At least not with the Scott fella who was called a "bitch", but it was the same with Karen's current boyfriend when she said that she didn't want to "just be friends". That's actually more what I was referring to.

 

The Scott guy is not someone I imagine myself ever being, but where I do see it being relevant is how you avoid being that "super friend" and just be an actual real friend. I mean it's not like my unrequited feelings would just magically disappear (at least not right away). Some part of me would still be tempted to try and impress and win her affections. I guess, it just seems like dangerous territory, if not a plain ol' bad idea.

 

And I knew guys who were these super friends to different degrees. Some where it was obvious he was being used, and other cases where it's harder to tell, and maybe it was just a series of miscommunications.

 

And thanks for watching the video. I know it's an investment in time (her videos are not short), so I appreciate that

[emilia]

I don't know how you know so much about me

Ouch. Why did you feel the need to say this? You have given a lot of information in this thread.

The Scott guy is not someone I imagine myself ever being, but where I do see it being relevant is how you avoid being that "super friend" and just be an actual real friend. I mean it's not like my unrequited feelings would just magically disappear (at least not right away). Some part of me would still be tempted to try and impress and win her affections. I guess, it just seems like dangerous territory, if not a plain ol' bad idea.

Sure, the temptation will be there, but you can keep an eye on yourself, and depending on how good friends you are, she could even do it for you, don't you think? Learn from your mistakes and work through your feelings..

And you're right that it's not the same sense of the word "friendship". At least not with the Scott fella who was called a "bitch", but it was the same with Karen's current boyfriend when she said that she didn't want to "just be friends". That's actually more what I was referring to.

Yes, that's true, but all it means that there are also women who think this way. I don't see how that changes anything.

[Kevin Beal]

Ouch. Why did you feel the need to say this? You have given a lot of information in this thread.Sure, the temptation will be there, but you can keep an eye on yourself, and depending on how good friends you are, she could even do it for you, don't you think? Learn from your mistakes and work through your feelings..

I am confused about the "ouch". But let me tell you how I'm experiencing our exchange.

 

You've kindly offered several corrections and pieces of advice. But despite this, I've only grown more confused about what I'm supposed to think or do. I'm sure I do have some baggage in this area, and you've suggested that I do, but you haven't told me why you think it's baggage that leads me to false conclusions. You just put it forward as an idea. And I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.

 

And when you said "ouch" you gave me no information on what was prickly or painful about my statement. I would really like to apologize if I did something inappropriate, but I have no idea what it was that I would be apologizing for...

 

Maybe it's some limitation of mine, and I guess it wouldn't be terribly surprising if it were, but I kinda feel like I'm pulling teeth over here in order to understand where you are coming from.

 

Honestly, I'm trying to be as sincere and honest as I can about this, and trying to meet you where you're at, but for whatever reason we keep missing each other. That's frustrating for me.

[massaki]

If whether or not the woman is available influences the amount of torture you feel, then what tortures you is clearly not the attraction you feel, but the impact that the woman not being interested in you, has on your self esteem. So clearly the problem is, like JohnH. said, that you don't want to work through the feelings that rejection brings out in you. I think it's the opposite of what you say: you need to have self respect to still be able to interact with someone who finds you deficient in some way, otherwise you will feel a desire to get away from them. Remember that all the qualities that made you like that person to begin with, are still there and the only thing that has changed is that she has rejected you romantically. If the reasons you liked her were genuine, and the main reason for your interest was not the way she makes you feel about yourself but your respect for her, you will have no reason to stop interacting with her.About the car analogy. If you value someones company so much that you would want to have a romantic relationship with them, isn't that a rare situation, especially amongst FDR people? It doesn't make any sense to walk away from them, just because they won't have sex with you.

 

 

 

Dude dude dude!  It's not about working through its about somebody has what i want, i'm going to stand there and stare at it, craving it.  There is nothing to work through.... There is no reason for someone to torture themselves over someone who thought they weren't good enough when both of the were single. It's really insulting actually.  Of course he wanted the romance because that's what he went for. To say hey be happy with what you got and if you aren't its your fault and saying you have to workout your feelings and value the friendship more, is so wrong.  It's the girl problem if she didnt see him as a goodamate, he doesn't have to stay and there isnt anything wrong with him for not wanting to stay in a relationship where his needs arent getting met.

Now you're just trolling me.. This isn't a conversation anymore.

I don't think you or anyone should respond to her anymore...... 

[emilia]

I am confused about the "ouch". But let me tell you how I'm experiencing our exchange.

 

You've kindly offered several corrections and pieces of advice. But despite this, I've only grown more confused about what I'm supposed to think or do. I'm sure I do have some baggage in this area, and you've suggested that I do, but you haven't told me why you think it's baggage that leads me to false conclusions. You just put it forward as an idea. And I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.

 

And when you said "ouch" you gave me no information on what was prickly or painful about my statement. I would really like to apologize if I did something inappropriate, but I have no idea what it was that I would be apologizing for...

 

Maybe it's some limitation of mine, and I guess it wouldn't be terribly surprising if it were, but I kinda feel like I'm pulling teeth over here in order to understand where you are coming from.

 

Honestly, I'm trying to be as sincere and honest as I can about this, and trying to meet you where you're at, but for whatever reason we keep missing each other. That's frustrating for me.

I couldn't think of any other reason why you would say " I don't know how you know so much about me", other than to put me down for trying to claim that I know something about you, that I couldn't possibly know. I felt hurt by that, and that's why I said the "ouch". My interpretation could be wrong, which is why I asked you why you said it. I asked it in a passive aggressive way though, and I am sorry about that.

 

I have no problem with it, if you think I don't know enough about you, but I would prefer that you just tell me that, instead of using passive aggression like that. (If my interpretation is correct.)

 

I'm having trouble deciding what to say about the rest of what you say.

 

I'm surprised that you are having so much trouble understanding what I have been trying to say, because you haven't asked me for clarifications or you haven't asked me what I think you should do. I agree that I haven't given you much information, so based on that I understand that you would be confused, it's just that I thought you would tell me that you don't understand or ask me more questions, if you were interested in what I was trying to say. You did ask a couple of questions, which I think I have answered except for this last one, which I only answered the "ouch" to, for reasons that I explained above.

 

I don't have very clear ideas about what you should do, and I have tried to make it clear. There are some things that I have said that I was sure of, and others that I'm not so sure of. I've tried to make that clear, but it might not have been clear enough. I have given you the thoughts that I have and then I have been looking to see how you respond, and if you find what I say interesting or helpful, and then ask me more if you do.

[Kevin Beal]

I couldn't think of any other reason why you would say " I don't know how you know so much about me", other than to put me down for trying to claim that I know something about you, that I couldn't possibly know. I felt hurt by that, and that's why I said the "ouch". My interpretation could be wrong, which is why I asked you why you said it. I asked it in a passive aggressive way though, and I am sorry about that.

 

I have no problem with it, if you think I don't know enough about you, but I would prefer that you just tell me that, instead of using passive aggression like that. (If my interpretation is correct.)

Well, I'm sorry Emilia for the confusion. I could definitely have been more clear. Especially considering what follows.

 

My statement was not in any way meant as a put down, but it was a challenge for you to backup your claims. If it were a verbal exchange, I think that would have come through much more clearly. Because, even still, we've been talking as if my history is clouding my judgment, as if it were a given. Nothing I've said seems to have changed that for you. In fact, it seems the opposite has occurred. You appear to me to be even more sure that my judgment is compromised.

 

An example of what I mean is that I tried to show that I'm aware of relevant family history and how it has had an impact on me, and what you suggested I should do is spend more time with women. And I don't know if this is because things got especially confusing with my "I don't know how you know so much about me" comment, but you didn't comment on the fact that I spend a lot of time with women.

 

And you said that I didn't ask for elaboration, but as you immediately followed that up, I did. But I don't understand how that would be an onus upon me to ask you for clarification on these things. I mean, telling me that you think I should spend more time with women without explaining why you think that is sort of cryptic, isn't it? Obviously, it's because of something in my account of my history that prompted it, maybe the bit about my mother destroying my dad? I'm genuinely curious.

 

I would prefer it if you had asked for clarification about my history and how much of it is processed. I mean, I did mention that I'm willing to talk more about it with you (and later that I'm in therapy) if you think it's important. In my blindness, I was trying to offer you as much ammo as you needed to blast the armies of falseness away revealing the shining city of truth. And honestly, I was mildly disappointed in yet another conclusion that I don't understand.

 

You mentioned that you were confused as to how I'm still confused. What I'm confused specifically about is how you think my judgment is clouded. I'm still no closer to understanding that. And maybe everything you've said is true. I don't know. I wish that I did.

 

But, this is probably a conversation that shouldn't be over text. If you would rather, I would be open to having a skype chat about this.

[Gavitor]

The heart wants what it can't have...

 

Regardless yes of course they can be friends, the question is are they actually your "friend"?

 

For me the issue with this subject comes down to honesty and communication. As has been shown and stated by many there is a lot of using and abusing going on. The reason its called the "friend zone" is because they are basically using friendship as a way to manipulate someone. A real friend will be open and honest with you and tell you how they feel. Most women do not do this and instead use their "friends" kindness since its basically free resources. My own mother admitted to doing this when she was younger.

 

To be my friend I require honesty and openness, regardless of gender. As far as sex goes, who said that sex and friendship are mutually exclusive? You can be friends AND have sex AND it can be a non romantic relationship. For me and it seems like many others share this view, A romantic relationship is more about having that special someone who you can share everything with, for lack of a better term a life companion. The friendship part is still there but they are basically the person you are closest too, your best friend.

 

Some other things to note, the keyword in boy/girlfriend is friend. If any of you have tried online dating, specifically the men, I'm sure you've noticed the surprisingly large number of women who say they want "friends first". In other words they want to use friendship as a form of rejection so they don't have to feel bad about outright rejecting you. IE the "friend zone". The main issue always has been and always will be a lack of honesty and communication. Manipulating language (the word "friend" in particular) and not being clear about ones intentions are usually where men and women have issues with friendship.

 

Sadly there's still a lot of women who use men by leading them on and manipulating the word "friend" to mean whatever is convenient at the time.

Not to let guys off the hook there are still guys who are not open about wanting to have a sexual relationship with a women and instead try to hide it only to come out later and say "Surprise! I have a penis!"

Honesty and openness are key to any real relationship be it romantic or platonic.