Married Folks: Do you nurture friendships with opposite sex individuals?

[bolt.]

You are introducing a false dichotomy here. It isn't simply "go deep and go long" or "do not speak to any men, ever"

 

It's much more nuanced than that. The point is that it is an unwise person who arrogantly assumes that she could never, ever be tripped up. You know when you are getting in. There is a whole fantasy life that accompanies friendships that you should not have, and it starts early. If you are smart, you get out early.

I don't think it's a false dichotomy -- I know that there are ways to speak to men that still hold them away from yourself, not getting invested, not being a tru friend and not actually loving them. I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong to not actually *love them*. If two people can carry on a polite conversation without feeling the warmth of real friendship, that's not love. It doesn't risk an affair, because it avoids becoming close. A lot of this advice is about avoiding becoming close, avoiding friendship, avoiding meeting each other's needs (which means 'avoiding ministering to each other') and avoiding sharing the things about life that would help us know each other well. To me, that fits the definition of intentionally and strategically avoiding loving one another.

 

Love *is* a nuanced thing -- as in, there are various kinds of love that happen in various kinds of relationships... but the casual dismissal of every person of the opposite gender as "not someone I could nurture a friendship with" isn't any kind of love. It's dismissal. Even if it's dismissal with the ability to be 'friendly' and casual, it's not the kind of relationship we are called to as Christians.

 

I certainly could be tripped up (though I am strictly monitoring my internal attract-o-meter) -- I'm not saying it's not risky to have intimated friendships with the opposite gender. It does have risks. It's still a commandment, though, so I think the risks must be managed. Managing the risks of Christian inter-gender friendships is much more in keeping with the Bible than actually actively avoiding inter-gender friendships. Establishing a personal policy of choosing never to nurture any possible inter-gender friendships (real friendships, with love) is a direct disobedience to the commands of Christ. People need more than one person in their life who loves them and knows them intimately. Those people are supposed to be friends. We are supposed to be doing that for each other -- all of each-other, not just the ones of each-other with whom we share a gender.

 

If sexual temptation is present in a friendship: flee. That's important. But it's still important to be willing to nurture friendships in the first place. Avoiding inter-gender friendships for fear of future-possible sexual temptation is like refusing to cook supper for your family because you are afraid you will burn it: the over-caution ends up starving people.

[nmoira]

If sexual temptation is present in a friendship: flee. That's important. But it's still important to be willing to nurture friendships in the first place. Avoiding inter-gender friendships for fear of future-possible sexual temptation is like refusing to cook supper for your family because you are afraid you will burn it: the over-caution ends up starving people.

 

 

This smacks suspiciously of common sense. Sounds good to me. :D

[Scarlett]

 

 

Bingo.

 

Really it is a simple thing as far as I'm concerned. I am not an overly emotional, overly hormonal creature. If I do not want to have an affair, it simply isn't going to happen.

 

People who are very into the whole "romantic" notion of relationships perhaps will not get that, but there are women -- yes, women -- who are perfectly rational in in control of their emotional and physical faculties enough to be able to eliminate all possibilities of romantic involvement with any member of the opposite sex. And, generally, when you tell a man who is your friend that the door is not open for that, so back off, well... they get it. And, if they don't, they're either masochists or idiots, so why would I continue even a friendship with that person?

 

I do not, for one minute, buy the argument that affairs just happen, or that there are situations that engender such a thing. What it boils down to is that someone WANTED to cheat. I don't, and hence it won't happen, regardless of who my friends are or aren't.

 

Some people, though, are afraid of such interactions because, likely, deep down they harbour some notions of it -- either fear of it or longing for it, or a combination thereof. So, they regulate themselves in an attempt to squelch their latent tendencies. It's when they insist on regulating others that it chaps my hide a bit.

 

 

I must have missed all the posts from those insisting on regulating others. I thought the thread was asking for our opinion on the subject. I don't think it is always a cut and dried issue but in Quill's example I would run far and fast.

[Guest]

I don't think it's a false dichotomy -- I know that there are ways to speak to men that still hold them away from yourself, not getting invested, not being a tru friend and not actually loving them. I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong to not actually *love them*. If two people can carry on a polite conversation without feeling the warmth of real friendship, that's not love. It doesn't risk an affair, because it avoids becoming close. A lot of this advice is about avoiding becoming close, avoiding friendship, avoiding meeting each other's needs (which means 'avoiding ministering to each other') and avoiding sharing the things about life that would help us know each other well. To me, that fits the definition of intentionally and strategically avoiding loving one another.

 

Love *is* a nuanced thing -- as in, there are various kinds of love that happen in various kinds of relationships... but the casual dismissal of every person of the opposite gender as "not someone I could nurture a friendship with" isn't any kind of love. It's dismissal. Even if it's dismissal with the ability to be 'friendly' and casual, it's not the kind of relationship we are called to as Christians.

 

I certainly could be tripped up (though I am strictly monitoring my internal attract-o-meter) -- I'm not saying it's not risky to have intimated friendships with the opposite gender. It does have risks. It's still a commandment, though, so I think the risks must be managed. Managing the risks of Christian inter-gender friendships is much more in keeping with the Bible than actually actively avoiding inter-gender friendships. Establishing a personal policy of choosing never to nurture any possible inter-gender friendships (real friendships, with love) is a direct disobedience to the commands of Christ. People need more than one person in their life who loves them and knows them intimately. Those people are supposed to be friends. We are supposed to be doing that for each other -- all of each-other, not just the ones of each-other with whom we share a gender.

 

If sexual temptation is present in a friendship: flee. That's important. But it's still important to be willing to nurture friendships in the first place. Avoiding inter-gender friendships for fear of future-possible sexual temptation is like refusing to cook supper for your family because you are afraid you will burn it: the over-caution ends up starving people.

 

I do not agree. I believe we should have love for all humanity and I have experienced what I believe is a Divine Love that carries with it no inappropriate tendencies. But the number of people with whom you can form a deep connection is limited even if only by the amount of time we each have to invest in others. Therefore, one's primary commitments are the most essential.

 

I watched a bad situation develop that I believe began on the best of Christian intentions. My mother was very fond of my sister's boyfriend. The boy had no functional mother and his father was kind of out of it, so my mother threw herself into a mentoring-mother-figure relationship with the boy. You could say that she was following a command to love others, but I saw a self-serving purpose in it. It feels good to be a mother-figure to someone who lacks that, who raves about how sweet and wonderful you are. My sister broke up with the boy, but my mother continued her relationship with him for some while afterwards. This was VERY harmful to her primary relationsips, especially her actual mothering role of mothering my sister! She invested time and effort taking the boy to work and calling him on the phone - time that subtracts from her ACTUAL children. At some point, it ended; I'm not sure if she came to her senses or my father shut it down or something else, but IMO, it should never have continued beyond the end of the relationship between my sister and the boy.

 

Don't misunderstand - I never said one should avoid all friendships with opposite genders. I used "nurture" for a very specific reason. My mother nurtured a friendship with this boy that I think was inappropriate and outside of her responsibilities to others. The story behind the OP was of a man who wants his friend to nurture the friendship at the expense of her husband's comfort and time that could be spent with her primary relationships. Personally, I don't think one would ever willingly proceed with actions that cause their spouse distress if the actions are not strictly necessary.

[sheryl]

I put no. I think in most cases it would be playing with fire, whether yu want to admit it or not. And men are wired differently than women and might have different... er... expectations of the friendship. Personally, there's no way I would. I know myself and I have a good marriage and I love my husband and I want to keep it that way. So I personally need to keep myself as faaaaaar away from temptation as possible.

I agree with this. Well said. I "do" believe it's "opening the door". Nothing may develop or something may....who would want to take that chance/make that choice?!?!?!? Men "ARE" wired from woman differently. Many people don't PLAN to get involved, but it just happens "sometimes' based on circumstances and lack of self-control.

[Mom-ninja.]

Love that video.

 

Dh and I do not and will not seek or nurture opposite sex friendships unless the person is gay. For us it works. Judge if you want. It's our marriage and we nurture our marriage as we see fit.

 

I respect our genetics, our chemistry, our evolutionary psychology, and our culture and do what I feel is best for my relationship with dh.

[I.Dup.]

Love that video.

 

Dh and I do not and will not seek or nurture opposite sex friendships unless the person is gay. For us it works. Judge if you want. It's our marriage and we nurture our marriage as we see fit.

 

I respect our genetics, our chemistry, our evolutionary psychology, and our culture and do what I feel is best for my relationship with dh.

 

No need to explain. I think to take the stance "my husband and I would NEVER do x, y, z" is a very presumptuous stance indeed. My sister once told me in her holier-than-thou way when she found out my dh was looking at p*rn that she would immediately leave her husband if he ever looked at p*rn. Well not only did he look at p*rn on their family computer for years but ended up cheating on her multiple times and eventually kicked HER out.

 

I think it's very clear that cheating is not just for the scum of the earth who can't control their genitals. It happens all the freaking time.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I'm in a disagreement with a friend. I think that to nurture a friendship with someone of the opposite sex is toying with fire. I'm not talking about retaining a friendship that pre-dates your marriage; I'm talking about pursing a closer friendship with someone that is not your spouse. Like the old "rediscovered my high school friend on FB and now want to get together for a cup of coffee" story that sounds like the plot for a made-for-TV-movie.

 

My friend says I am wrong; that this shows you either don't trust yourself or your spouse doesn't trust you (or both), if you would decline the cup of coffee get-together.

 

I think even a great marriage can have it's grass-is-greener moments and that it is better not to walk towards the green grass in the first place. What says the Hive?

 

I totally agree with you. FB friendships are OK as long as they stay there, but not getting together IRL. I wouldn't appreciate if my husband did that--not one bit.

 

Maintaining casual friendships with the opposite sex is OK, like the friends hubby and I share. But to "NURTURE" a relationship, NO! Because, to me, that implies wanting it to grow and deepen, and requires spending time and putting in effort.

 

There's just not a reason to do so.

[bolt.]

I don't find that loving others interferes with my ability to be a good mother. In the case of the surrogate-mother issue that hurt her own children, I expect it would have been just as hurtful if she had carried in intensely with a female former-girlfriend of a son. That was not an issue of inappropriate gender relations, but an issue of failure to consider the nuances and ramifications of one loving relationship on other ones (which are more primary).

 

It was a misjudgment -- but it should not lead to a personal policy of "It's too risky to truly love troubled teens. It's not worth it. Let them live without my love."

 

There is a VERY good reason for Christans to take he risk of loving one another -- even if it opens the door to future-possible attraction. That reason is simple: love is commanded, and it is not optional. "Divine love" might be a good feeling, but we also have to enact that love (love is an action) when and where we find ourselves. It is not appropreate to limit that capacity for love to only one gender (not any more than it is ok to limit it to one race, one sexual orientation, one socio-economic class, or anything else.)

 

If my spouse was so uncomfortable with the idea of me nurturing a male friendship (a real friendship, with love) that he felt the need to actually ask me not to... In the short term I'd try to accommodate myself to his immaturity and insecurity about it. In the long term, I'd strongly encourage him to grow in his understanding and comfort level regarding appropriate Christian love. (If he generally did not have this issue, yet had real concern about a particular friendship -- that is something I would pay very strong attention to. I expect him to occasionally pick up on something I could be blind to.)

[Venia]

I voted no. While I know with certainty that I am in complete control, my control of the situation ends where someone else begins. I've had too many experiences that have show me that I can never fully know another person or their intentions (even members of the same sex). The sad part is, that even if you are the 100% innocent party in a bad situation, your loved ones can still get hurt by the experience.

[Jennifer3141]

No making fun here.

 

You are dead on accurate. Anyone who has been married a really long time should understand this.

 

I've been married for 15 years. And I've never "drifted." We've been mad at each other for a few hours, circumcision had us mad at each for a few days but "drifting?" Uh, no.

[nmoira]

I've been married for 15 years. And I've never "drifted." We've been mad at each other for a few hours, circumcision had us mad at each for a few days but "drifting?" Uh, no.

 

Sounds kinda like us. Maybe she means that only those who have been married for 30+ years are qualified to talk about marriage? Wonder how long she's been married?

[ktgrok]

Ok, I see several potential problems... part of it is if you let these people make love bank deposits.. Like if good conversation is important to you and hubby is tired at the end of the day... So you go out with a co-worker to discuss a work issue but gradually the topic changes to things you both enjoy... You continue to meet and suddenly you are at least having an emotional afair.. I wish I could tell you the amount of people that I've known or have read on boards that said, "I never thought it could happen to me. I was never attracted to other men...." Yet there they were... I will talk to men, but I will never meet with them alone or discuss things of a personal nature. That is for my husband alone...

 

 

Yup. Agreed. We all know that the biggest sexual organ is the brain. So if you are actively seeking deep, close friendship with someone else....it CAN lead to attraction. Not purposely. But it can. We all know most people say their DH is their best friend. MOST of that relationship is based on friendship. Don't give that to another man.

[nmoira]

Yup. Agreed. We all know that the biggest sexual organ is the brain. So if you are actively seeking deep, close friendship with someone else....it CAN lead to attraction. Not purposely. But it can. We all know most people say their DH is their best friend. MOST of that relationship is based on friendship. Don't give that to another man.

 

Or woman?

[Jennifer3141]

Sounds kinda like us. Maybe she means that only those who have been married for 30+ years are qualified to talk about marriage? Wonder how long she's been married?

 

 

 

Who knows? Who cares? :laugh:

 

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that one party is looking at it through a cultural/conservatice Christian lens and using the bible to back up their reasons and then there are the others who do not have that lens.

 

For DH and I, we don't have an external sense of morality telling us what is right and "wrong." We have each other and our own consciences and our own life together to guide us.

 

And nary the twain shall meet...

 

I openly state I fantasize about other men. DH will laugh and tell you he fantasizes about other women, probably an hour or so ago. I'm not exactly a vision of beauty until about 3:00 in the afternoon. And then it's a very short window. But we don't judge it. It's there. We laugh about it and move on because as much fun as the fantasy is, neither of us would trade it for:

 

our own private jokes, movie nights with the kids in bed where we all wake up covered in popcorn and Milk Dud crumbs, the birth of our daughter, the death of his favorite aunt and the death of mine, job victories, job defeats, Seinfeld, road trips, AMAZING "tea," not so amazing "tea" - more like "better luck next time" 'tea,'" opening nights of any Star Trek movie, the death of beloved pets and being safe to cry over a cat with each other for months and months. moving, surprise pregancies that weren't supposed to happen, miscarriages, the fights - holy mackeral, the fights!, cancer, explaining geometry to the kids and then spending weeks pointing our tetrahedrons to the kids everywhere we went, etc. etc. etc.

 

I saw a movie once where someone had the opportunity to cheat and stood there with their version of the above paragraph just streaming though his head. I don't even rembember if they cheated or not in the movie.

 

Yes, I've had the opportunity to cheat. So has DH. But it would have to be the kind of relationship where I was "set for life" and we'd have tons of money to take the kids and the animals and he'd have to be nerd enough to want to see the opening night of Star Trek movies but also cool enough to drive the right sports car but tender enough to cuddle day old ducklings, and kind enough to quietly donate money to a friend in need, and he'd have to know exactly how to "sext" me so I would or wouldn't laugh - depending upon the mood, and he'd have to be taller than DH, and better looking, and poop... I'm tired of thinking about it already and what would be the point? It could *maybe* be Daniel Craig but honestly, I've read a few interviews of his and he's missing a few necessary qualities. So even that's out. And then I'd also have to go back to daily leg shaving and who has the energy for that??

 

So sorry, Mr. Craig. You can come over and watch Seinfeld with me but we aren't having an affair. Too.Much.

[Guest]

It was a misjudgment -- but it should not lead to a personal policy of "It's too risky to truly love troubled teens. It's not worth it. Let them live without my love."

 

See, bolt, I think it's better to know your own weakness. Mom should have seen her own weakness of, "Gosh, I know how much I love feeling like a needed mother to a wounded young man. It would be better to not play with this area of weakness." Just because she knew him does not mean she was the right person to take this surrogate mother role - or that it had to continue after her daughter broke up.

 

An alcoholic who has been sober for a year knows better than to go to a party where there will be drinking, no?

 

I also think those internal alarms are there for a reason and if someone's initial gut reaction is to think - Whoa! I don't feel good about driving 3 hours to go meet up with this friend - then I think heeding that gut reaction is smart.

[aggieamy]

Who knows? Who cares? :laugh:

 

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that one party is looking at it through a cultural/conservatice Christian lens and using the bible to back up their reasons and then there are the others who do not have that lens.

 

For DH and I, we don't have an external sense of morality telling us what is right and "wrong." We have each other and our own consciences and our own life together to guide us.

 

And nary the twain shall meet...

 

I openly state I fantasize about other men. DH will laugh and tell you he fantasizes about other women, probably an hour or so ago. I'm not exactly a vision of beauty until about 3:00 in the afternoon. And then it's a very short window. But we don't judge it. It's there. We laugh about it and move on because as much fun as the fantasy is, neither of us would trade it for:

 

our own private jokes, movie nights with the kids in bed where we all wake up covered in popcorn and Milk Dud crumbs, the birth of our daughter, the death of his favorite aunt and the death of mine, job victories, job defeats, Seinfeld, road trips, AMAZING "tea," not so amazing "tea" - more like "better luck next time" 'tea,'" opening nights of any Star Trek movie, the death of beloved pets and being safe to cry over a cat with each other for months and months. moving, surprise pregancies that weren't supposed to happen, miscarriages, the fights - holy mackeral, the fights!, cancer, explaining geometry to the kids and then spending weeks pointing our tetrahedrons to the kids everywhere we went, etc. etc. etc.

 

I saw a movie once where someone had the opportunity to cheat and stood there with their version of the above paragraph just streaming though his head. I don't even rembember if they cheated or not in the movie.

 

Yes, I've had the opportunity to cheat. So has DH. But it would have to be the kind of relationship where I was "set for life" and we'd have tons of money to take the kids and the animals and he'd have to be nerd enough to want to see the opening night of Star Trek movies but also cool enough to drive the right sports car but tender enough to cuddle day old ducklings, and kind enough to quietly donate money to a friend in need, and he'd have to know exactly how to "sext" me so I would or wouldn't laugh - depending upon the mood, and he'd have to be taller than DH, and better looking, and poop... I'm tired of thinking about it already and what would be the point? It could *maybe* be Daniel Craig but honestly, I've read a few interviews of his and he's missing a few necessary qualities. So even that's out. And then I'd also have to go back to daily leg shaving and who has the energy for that??

 

So sorry, Mr. Craig. You can come over and watch Seinfeld with me but we aren't having an affair. Too.Much.

 

 

Wow. Spot on. I'm Catholic but not very legalistic so a lot of the conservative stuff makes me feel a little squicky. This however I can agree with. DH and I are newlyweds compared to a lot of this board and even when he's wearing the same outfit three days in a row and has appearantly given up on shaving I still wouldn't trade him for anything. I can't imagine how it would be if I started feeling attracted to another person but I also make a point of not putting myself in those situations because I know it would be a mistake. DH is the guy for me. Who else is going to be the worlds best dad to DD? Who else is going to make me laugh so hard I almost wet my pants? Who else is going to remember my dearly loved grandmother? Who else is going to be outraged about the same stuff that I get outraged about? Who else is going to know exactly what I mean when I look at a Mini Cooper and say "Farm Truck"? I feel like in this short span of time we've already built a life together that nobody else could match. Doesn't mean I haven't occasionally thought about adding just a bit of cyanide to his dinner after a big fight ... KIDDING!

[TranquilMind]

Jennifer3141':

 

For DH and I, we don't have an external sense of morality telling us what is right and "wrong." We have each other and our own consciences and our own life together to guide us.

 

And nary the twain shall meet...

 

I openly state I fantasize about other men. DH will laugh and tell you he fantasizes about other women, probably an hour or so ago. I'm not exactly a vision of beauty until about 3:00 in the afternoon. And then it's a very short window. But we don't judge it. It's there. We laugh about it and move on because as much fun as the fantasy is, neither of us would trade it for:

 

our own private jokes, movie nights with the kids in bed where we all wake up covered in popcorn and Milk Dud crumbs, the birth of our daughter, the death of his favorite aunt and the death of mine, job victories, job defeats, Seinfeld, road trips, AMAZING "tea," not so amazing "tea" - more like "better luck next time" 'tea,'" opening nights of any Star Trek movie, the death of beloved pets and being safe to cry over a cat with each other for months and months. moving, surprise pregancies that weren't supposed to happen, miscarriages, the fights - holy mackeral, the fights!, cancer, explaining geometry to the kids and then spending weeks pointing our tetrahedrons to the kids everywhere we went, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I hope that's always true for you. The rest of your post seems to suggest that it would be a possiblity IF he were taller, handsome, and you were rich enough that it wouldn't affect your finances.

 

Whatever floats your boat. I am not interested in a marriage where we both "openly fantasize" about other partners. Just not something that interests us.

[TranquilMind]

See, bolt, I think it's better to know your own weakness. Mom should have seen her own weakness of, "Gosh, I know how much I love feeling like a needed mother to a wounded young man. It would be better to not play with this area of weakness." Just because she knew him does not mean she was the right person to take this surrogate mother role - or that it had to continue after her daughter broke up.

 

An alcoholic who has been sober for a year knows better than to go to a party where there will be drinking, no?

 

I also think those internal alarms are there for a reason and if someone's initial gut reaction is to think - Whoa! I don't feel good about driving 3 hours to go meet up with this friend - then I think heeding that gut reaction is smart.

 

 

Yes, to all this.

[TranquilMind]

I can only speak for myself. I both get to speak for my life and my ability to set and respect moral and ethical boundaries. In my life, being friends with men has not ever been cause for concern and my life is daily made richer by my friendships with men and women. You might call that rationalizing, but you would be incorrect. The potential does not exist meaning because I have a friendship bond with some one has the same basic primary and secondary sex characteristics that my husband does. The potential only exists if there's that extra layer of depth and feeling necessary to have a sexual relationship. Thinking someone is a good dad or a good listener doesn't rise to that level for me. It ain't something I run across very often. I'm a picky lady.

 

 

You know how I interpret this? I think that this particular issue simply isn't a real temptation for you. It reminds me of Joyce Meyer, a Christian speaker, who said that never once had she ever awakened and prayed that she wouldn't rob a bank today. Robbing banks simply wasn't within her realm of experience of temptation. Had she been raised with bank robbers, and participated in bank robbing, getting the thrill of getting away with it, and this had been her life, it might have been a temptation.

 

We all have different areas of weakness. A wise person knows her own and steers clear. But there are times that we don't know we will have a problem with something until it rears its ugly head.

 

I was raised in a family of origin that never had alcohol in the house except maybe on New Year's Eve. BUT...there were many alcoholics in the family tree. It would have been wise for me never to have touched alcohol, but I thought I could handle it, and didn't even have a drink until maybe 25 years old. I was mistaken, as it grew slowly into a very hard to break habit in my life.

 

We all have maybe 2 or 3 different areas of temptation, in my experience. It's wise to avoid your own.

[TranquilMind]

 

I am reminded of how I know I'll never be an alcoholic. When I do have something to drink, at the very, very first whisper of facial warmth or slight lightheadedness I immediately push the glass away and don't drink again for 6 months or a year or longer.

 

Similarly, the moment I feel a heightened sense of a man, and we are not both single and any future together not unreasonable, I immediately CLAMP down on myself and snip it off. If I felt I wasn't able to, I'd avoid him politely. Now that I'm securely past menopause, I can safely declare that this good set of brakes I have is completely reliable.

 

If I didn't have that good set of brakes, I might well have answered the poll differently.

 

 

Good way to put it. I have those brakes in many areas, but not in a few. Menopausal now...will it make a difference? Not sure, as I think much of attraction to things/people is in the mind, not physically so much.

 

You sound like my Mom. She was a gorgeous young woman in the 50's, who took a job when her two young children entered school (my older bros). This man kept talking to her all the time, and asking her to have lunch. She clamped the brakes down hard on that and walked away. I like to think I'm like her, but truth is, she was a better person than me. I'd probably push the parameters because I enjoyed the feeling of someone being interested in and attracted to me, even if I didn't intend to take it anywhere, if we are being totally honest here.

[TranquilMind]

 

I know. And that's all I'm saying on that.

 

I just don't think that friendships between people of the opposite sex should be off limits based on the potential for that happening. You could be missing out on a great friendship that way.

 

 

But see, if you are really brutally honest with yourself, you know very early if the potential exists or not. If it doesn't, full steam ahead. If it does, shut down that rudder.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

 

. I know that my "love language" is words of affirmation. If a male friend of mine started telling me how awesome I am at everything, it would feel like he loves me more than dh, who is not dumb-struck with my awesomeness anymore and, as such, doesn't continuously give me praise.

 

I'm a praise glutton.

 

 

The bolded struck me as pretty funny! Not dumb-struck with my awesomeness....bwahaha

[smandysen]

I voted no...plain and simple.

 

To me, "nurture" means to cultivate, care for, develop, etc. I think nurturing a relationship with a man who is not my husband is dangerous. I would be livid if my husband nurtured a relationship with a woman other than myself! The people my husband works with and those who work for him do not have to be friends with him (and vice versa.) It is a working relationship and only that. I worked in an Infantry Battalion (as a Civilian)...no other female employees and there were about 600-700 soldiers. I was friendly and worked well with them but did not have any personal relationships. I am also friends with the spouses of most of my friends. I would not seek to develop a deeper bond with the men, even though I count them as brothers to me. In my mind, it just isn't appropriate.

[bolt.]

I just don't understand all the anger and fear that exists around simple friendship.

 

We all have internal sensors that warn us when attraction is developing. That's part of being self-aware in friendships. It's not a reason to choose not to *have* friendships.

 

Any Christians among us just don't have the freedom to ignore Jesus because we fear our own sexuality.

 

Personally, I would be livid at my husband (and my parents, and my children, and basically any Christian in my life) if they were walking so out of step with the Spirit that they could feel they were doing the right thing by rejecting the very possibility of nurturing friendship with fully half of the population of the world. Just think of all the people unjustly rejected and ignored in that situation! The loneliness and isolation and friendlessness. I won't contribute to that, and I *will* say that I apply that standard to others. I apply it to anyone who is (in this life) making an effort to walk in step with God who is Love: with Christ and the Spirit. I believe there are people who are in open disobedience -- when they choose gender as an excuse to not befriend people and lovingly nurture (cultivate, care for and develop) those relationships.

 

Yeah. The inter-gender relationships take tact, wisdom, care and self-awareness. How about we get a grip on those things ASAP, then actually start loving our brothers and sisters? I just don't think loving our spouse, our kids and our extended family actually fulfills the command to love one another. It think nurturing intimate friendships is, quite simply, mandatory for Christians.

[bolt.]

I think there are lots of ways of refusing to 'get close' in relationships. Casual friendliness does not often communicate love and intimacy. Nurturing a friendship means doing things to draw someone close to you -- opening your life to them, sharing joys and sorrows, talking honestly about things that matter, knowing one another well and appreciating each other. When you move you miss your friends, you hardly notice that your aquaintences are missing.

 

No, you don't need to specifically engage in complaining about one's husband, and it is not nessisary to spend time "alone" to be a real friend -- but people are not generally afraid of being unchaparoned with their real friends simply because of gender. There are ways of being truly close without being sexual. We practice that by the way we feel about our actual brothers (uncles, fathers, grandfathers) so we know it can be done. We need to learn to do it as friends -- to nurture close friendships, not run from them.

[Guest]

Bolt,

 

Can you please give me an example from your real life, please.. Because the other problem I see is TIME to actually do what I think you are saying.. If husband is working 50- 60 hours a week, you are homeschooling multiple children, taking care of the house, etc There is only so much time left over.. Just curious and trying to get a handle on what you are saying. To be honest, I haven't found time/opportunity for friends of the same gender either. So give me an example of truly pouring into friends lives in your week..

 

 

Exactly. This is what I think, too. Part of why I can't see "pouring myself" into an opposite-sex friendship is because I can't even "pour myself" into my same-sex friendships and family members to the degree that I truly desire. There simply are not enough hours in the week to do so. I have aging parents who would benefit from much more nurturing, a MIL who is showing signs of dementia, a hormonal nearly 16yo dd, two younger boys, 3 sibs, 12 siblings-in-law, 22 neices/nephews and one grand-nephew. Shew! :laugh: To say nothing of my best friends, my pretty close friends and my wider circle of acquaintances. I homeschool two kids, take another to private school, work part-time, go to college, write and read, try to keep myself healthy and make homemade food as much as possible. I have been trying to convince myself I can carve out time to attend a small group with my church, which would nurture more relationships with others, but I resist because that's a few more hours a week I'll need to commit. So - yeah. I do see time as a major limitation. If I were to invest hours in a male friend, it would be very conspicuous with all these other obligations that would suffer from the time spent elsewhere.

[misty.warden]

Exactly. This is what I think, too. Part of why I can't see "pouring myself" into an opposite-sex friendship is because I can't even "pour myself" into my same-sex friendships and family members to the degree that I truly desire. There simply are not enough hours in the week to do so. I have aging parents who would benefit from much more nurturing, a MIL who is showing signs of dementia, a hormonal nearly 16yo dd, two younger boys, 3 sibs, 12 siblings-in-law, 22 neices/nephews and one grand-nephew. Shew! :laugh: To say nothing of my best friends, my pretty close friends and my wider circle of acquaintances. I homeschool two kids, take another to private school, work part-time, go to college, write and read, try to keep myself healthy and make homemade food as much as possible. I have been trying to convince myself I can carve out time to attend a small group with my church, which would nurture more relationships with others, but I resist because that's a few more hours a week I'll need to commit. So - yeah. I do see time as a major limitation. If I were to invest hours in a male friend, it would be very conspicuous with all these other obligations that would suffer from the time spent elsewhere.

 

 

Here is where I think we were starting to talk around each other. I completely understand being so busy that wanting to reserve any time to nurture your relationship with your DH is a major priority and spending "borrowed" time with another person would look strange and possibly damage the relationship, I was just really confused about why it was emphasized that the risk was having an opposite sex friend, rather than just any friend who was taking you away from time you would rather be spending on your family.

 

ETA: I think it's interesting that when I was first looking into marriage (LTR at the end of high school, FWIW) people were constantly telling me that my relationship was "too close" with my SO and we needed to make time for hobbies specifically to be away from each other and nurture friendships with non-mutual friends.

[Guest]

Here is where I think we were starting to talk around each other. I completely understand being so busy that wanting to reserve any time to nurture your relationship with your DH is a major priority and spending "borrowed" time with another person would look strange and possibly damage the relationship, I was just really confused about why it was emphasized that the risk was having an opposite sex friend, rather than just any friend who was taking you away from time you would rather be spending on your family.

 

ETA: I think it's interesting that when I was first looking into marriage (LTR at the end of high school, FWIW) people were constantly telling me that my relationship was "too close" with my SO and we needed to make time for hobbies specifically to be away from each other and nurture friendships with non-mutual friends.

 

Well, I personally do feel that this is a bigger issue with a male friend than it would be with a female friend, though I can't say I have time for either. I really don't think another male "deserves" that kind of attention, even if I did actually have hours and hours of time available. So, in my POV, the fact that it is a guy does enter the equation. I don't seek out close, intimate friendships with other guys. Full stop.

 

So, for example, I love my dh's brothers. They are absolutely dear to me. I think they wonderful men and I call them friends. I can't imagine a scenario where those friendships could ever cross the line - they are literally like my own brothers. However: I don't seek a close friendship with them that is outside of the ordinary family interactions. Even if I thought one of them would be a great marathon-training partner or would love to go see Les Miserables with me, I would never seek to be alone in a close way with them. It just screams inappropriate. I have no problem hanging with my SILs and getting as friendly and close with them as time permits, but I would not do the same thing with their husbands.

 

To me, that it's a guy DOES make a difference, though extensive time spent externally could be harmful no matter who is getting the borrowed attention.

 

As for your ETA point: I think that is a common admonition when people feel a young marriage is forthcoming. Young people can become myopic about their romantic attractions to where they forget there are other things they like besides the SO.

[Scarlett]

 

Well, I personally do feel that this is a bigger issue with a male friend than it would be with a female friend, though I can't say I have time for either. I really don't think another male "deserves" that kind of attention, even if I did actually have hours and hours of time available. So, in my POV, the fact that it is a guy does enter the equation. I don't seek out close, intimate friendships with other guys. Full stop.

 

So, for example, I love my dh's brothers. They are absolutely dear to me. I think they wonderful men and I call them friends. I can't imagine a scenario where those friendships could ever cross the line - they are literally like my own brothers. However: I don't seek a close friendship with them that is outside of the ordinary family interactions. Even if I thought one of them would be a great marathon-training partner or would love to go see Les Miserables with me, I would never seek to be alone in a close way with them. It just screams inappropriate. I have no problem hanging with my SILs and getting as friendly and close with them as time permits, but I would not do the same thing with their husbands.

 

To me, that it's a guy DOES make a difference, though extensive time spent externally could be harmful no matter who is getting the borrowed attention.

 

 

 

This. Especially the highlighted.

[misty.warden]

 

Well, I personally do feel that this is a bigger issue with a male friend than it would be with a female friend, though I can't say I have time for either. I really don't think another male "deserves" that kind of attention, even if I did actually have hours and hours of time available. So, in my POV, the fact that it is a guy does enter the equation. I don't seek out close, intimate friendships with other guys. Full stop.

 

So, for example, I love my dh's brothers. They are absolutely dear to me. I think they wonderful men and I call them friends. I can't imagine a scenario where those friendships could ever cross the line - they are literally like my own brothers. However: I don't seek a close friendship with them that is outside of the ordinary family interactions. Even if I thought one of them would be a great marathon-training partner or would love to go see Les Miserables with me, I would never seek to be alone in a close way with them. It just screams inappropriate. I have no problem hanging with my SILs and getting as friendly and close with them as time permits, but I would not do the same thing with their husbands.

 

To me, that it's a guy DOES make a difference, though extensive time spent externally could be harmful no matter who is getting the borrowed attention.

 

As for your ETA point: I think that is a common admonition when people feel a young marriage is forthcoming. Young people can become myopic about their romantic attractions to where they forget there are other things they like besides the SO.

 

 

Yup I'm lost again. So even when nothing could happen and you have oodles of time to nurture your spouse, marathon training or seeing a movie with your BIL "screams inappropriate" and isn't an ordinary family interaction? Definitely going to have to be an agree to disagree thing between you and I because that makes zero sense to me.

 

As far as the admonition, I think it's very confusing to people to be told that one can be too close with a partner when one happens to be at the young end of marriageable age and then told that nothing should be more important than their partner once they've signed a piece of paper.

[Scarlett]

 

Yup I'm lost again. So even when nothing could happen and you have oodles of time to nurture your spouse, marathon training or seeing a movie with your BIL "screams inappropriate" and isn't an ordinary family interaction? Definitely going to have to be an agree to disagree thing between you and I because that makes zero sense to me.

 

As far as the admonition, I think it's very confusing to people to be told that one can be too close with a partner when one happens to be at the young end of marriageable age and then told that nothing should be more important than their partner once they've signed a piece of paper.

 

 

I don't get the disconnect. Kids that might be too young for marriage being warned that they are too involved and too close....? That doesn't make sense to you?

 

That has nothing to do with protecting the marital relationship from third parties that could be damaging. And if you can't see how training for a marathon alone or going to the movies alone with your BIL is inappropriate than I imagine we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

 

I don't go around ignoring all men. But I am not going to spend time alone with them without a darn good reason. Thankfully my dh agrees with this line of thinking so he won't be asking another woman to go to the movies alone with him.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Do what works for your marriage and don't judge those of us who do what is right for ours. We have different personalities and strengths and temptations. I would have had no friends at all in seminary since I was one of only 3 women at the school. I liked one of the other women and she was my friend but didn't get along with the third one. Dh wouldn't have had any friends in nursing school! I learned to have male friends with internal boundaries in place. Dh learned to do the same. I don't have oodles of time for friends and when I do have time it is usually multi-tasked time where I'm trying to take my kids on a field trip! I don't like blanket admonitions for the most part though.

[misty.warden]

 

 

I don't get the disconnect. Kids that might be too young for marriage being warned that they are too involved and too close....? That doesn't make sense to you?

 

That has nothing to do with protecting the marital relationship from third parties that could be damaging. And if you can't see how training for a marathon alone or going to the movies alone with your BIL is inappropriate than I imagine we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

 

I don't go around ignoring all men. But I am not going to spend time alone with them without a darn good reason. Thankfully my dh agrees with this line of thinking so he won't be asking another woman to go to the movies alone with him.

 

Nowhere did I say anything about being too young for marriage. Regardless, the advice was not "you're getting too close to this person and at your age you're not ready" it was "married people need to have their own friends too, make sure you're not spending all of your time with your intended and that you have hobbies that are not shared."

 

Being told that it's essential to have outside friendships and activities and that your relationship with that person is not the most important thing in your life is the exact opposite of what you've been saying; that no one, especially men, "deserve" your attention because you have a husband.

[Scarlett]

Being told that it's essential to have outside friendships and activities and that your relationship with that person is not the most important thing in your life is the exact opposite of what you've been saying; that no one, especially men, "deserve" your attention because you have a husband.

 

Oh I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. I can't speak to that because that line of thinking is not something I would ever encourage in anyone nor did I ever hear it said to me.

 

As Jean says we all have to do what we think is right. And when someone asks me for my opinion on such a matter I will gladly share.

[mytwomonkeys]

I think there are lots of ways of refusing to 'get close' in relationships. Casual friendliness does not often communicate love and intimacy. Nurturing a friendship means doing things to draw someone close to you -- opening your life to them, sharing joys and sorrows, talking honestly about things that matter, knowing one another well and appreciating each other.

 

If my husband had a female friend as close as you describe, that would be really bothersome to me, especially if the friendship manifested after our marriage . That kind of friendship would require upkeep and constant communication. It is way beyond casual and in the realm of intimate. It doesn't have to be sexual at all to be disrespectful. I would not be okay feeling like a 3rd wheel in a relationship between my husband and a female friend.

 

As far as not loving half the population? We would both be friends with someone. We are not cutting off anyone. I think that is ridiculous. They are gaining two friends instead of one.

[Scarlett]

 

of what you've been saying; that no one, especially men, "deserve" your attention because you have a husband.

 

I would like to point out that no where did I say I couldn't give another man any attention. What I've said is it is inappropriate (IMO) to spend time alone with men. That time alone could even be on line or on the phone if the line was crossed over into being an intimate relationship.

[misty.warden]

I would like to point out that no where did I say I couldn't give another man any attention. What I've said is it is inappropriate (IMO) to spend time alone with men. That time alone could even be on line or on the phone if the line was crossed over into being an intimate relationship.

 

The deserving part was from your quoted agreement with Quill, who did say explicitly that men did not deserve the kind of attention that friendship requires from her. Apologies if that's not what you meant for yourself. It may be a semantics thing, but I don't understand how a friendship is automatically an unacceptably "intimate" relationship by virtue of having spent time alone together.

[Murphy101]

Meh. I don't understand all the angst.

 

I don't think a spouse is immature if they don't like it. And even if they are immature, their still who I chose to marry. If they aren't abusive or have a habit of not letting me have friends - then I side with my spouse. The end. I can't imagine any friend male or female earning I higher place in my regard that it would be worth bothering my husband, much less making him upset, to be with.

 

For that matter, I happen to be the jealous one in our relationship. It's a half hearted half joke here.

 

He knows it's about my own insecurities. I'm blessed that he loves me enough to know that and handle with care rather than accuse me of immaturity for not feeling okay with him hanging out with other women. Or for that matter, men of crappy character.

[Scarlett]

 

The deserving part was from your quoted agreement with Quill, who did say explicitly that men did not deserve the kind of attention that friendship requires from her. Apologies if that's not what you meant for yourself. It may be a semantics thing, but I don't understand how a friendship is automatically an unacceptably "intimate" relationship by virtue of having spent time alone together.

 

No apology needed. I just think so much of this thread has twisted and turned to the point that how many of us feel is lost in translation/

 

I have lots of male friends. I just am careful to keep those friendships above board and above reproach. I wouldn't want to hurt my marriage, my dh, my conscience...I wouldn't want to give anyone a reason to be suspcious of my motives. I wouldn't want to hurt any of my friends or their wives by having an inappropriate relationship with them....and yes I believe spending time alone is inappropriate. And I can't even fathom a situation where it would be normal seeming for me to spend time alone with another man.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Scarlett, I'm careful to keep my friendships above board and above reproach too. I just don't feel that spending time "alone" in public is inappropriate. Many many years ago when I worked at a bank, I used to go out to lunch often with other co-workers - sometimes men, sometimes women, sometimes a mix, whoever was free at the time. I had only one time when I felt uncomfortable in that situation and that was because the man made a big deal of having our table be apart and alone. There were weird vibes there and it was a very strained lunch. I did not pursue a friendship with him and by that I mean I did not allow a friendship to grow with him.

[Scarlett]

Scarlett, I'm careful to keep my friendships above board and above reproach too. I just don't feel that spending time "alone" in public is inappropriate. Many many years ago when I worked at a bank, I used to go out to lunch often with other co-workers - sometimes men, sometimes women, sometimes a mix, whoever was free at the time. I had only one time when I felt uncomfortable in that situation and that was because the man made a big deal of having our table be apart and alone. There were weird vibes there and it was a very strained lunch. I did not pursue a friendship with him and by that I mean I did not allow a friendship to grow with him.

 

Jean, I agree that there might be situaitons where a lunch in public is not inappropriate. It would just depend on the situation. I wouldn't go out of my way to make that happen, but if that was the ONLY way to see a friend I hadn't seen in a while (I"m trying to imagine such a situation but really I can't ) I wouldn't say it was wrong. However, there were several examples on this thread about training alone for a marathon or going to the movies alone....that just seems weird to me. I would never do that.

[Joker]

I stated upthread I am careful about male friendships, but I would have zero problem hanging out with my BILs. Dh and I would not see anything wrong with me going for coffee, cathing a movie, or running together. I also would have zero problem with dh hanging out with my sister alone. They're family and it just wouldn't bother us and I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all.

 

As far as work goes, it would be hard for dh to avoid having lunch with women. Just today he took of his direct reports to lunch and they were both women. It doesn't bother me.

[misty.warden]

Jean, I agree that there might be situaitons where a lunch in public is not inappropriate. It would just depend on the situation. I wouldn't go out of my way to make that happen, but if that was the ONLY way to see a friend I hadn't seen in a while (I"m trying to imagine such a situation but really I can't ) I wouldn't say it was wrong. However, there were several examples on this thread about training alone for a marathon or going to the movies alone....that just seems weird to me. I would never do that.

 

I can't fault you for what you believe is inappropriate for you, I just didn't like the implication that it's a universal rule and people who behave differently are in denial that they're doing something dangerous to their marriage. Public is another word that is hard to define. Since marathon running is an outdoor activity and cinemas are full of other people seeing the same film I'd classify both of those as public places where just because I didn't bring more than one friend I was "alone" KWIM?

 

As for other people visiting my intentions and being suspicious of why I'm out with any particular friend alone, it's not my job to care if their minds are in the gutter. I can understand wanting to avoid anything that would cause someone else to gossip, i wouldn't want to deal with that drama either and it has been known to put doubt into the minds of spouses and family, but if someone talks about another behind their back to me I tend to think it's the talker who needs to change *their* behavior, not the person they're talking about.

[Scarlett]

 

I can't fault you for what you believe is inappropriate for you, I just didn't like the implication that it's a universal rule and people who behave differently are in denial that they're doing something dangerous to their marriage. .

 

Well I certainly don't think it is a universal rule. I tried ruling the world but no one would listen to me. ;)

 

And as for people being in denial....well, sometimes they are! But people will do what they want to do.

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't think the point of this thread - or of anyone who has commented on it - was to give any universal rules. :confused:

I just wish people could state their opinions - on both sides - and not feel like they have to defend themselves or tell others how they should live.

JMO.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Yeah - running esp. I do not think of as alone at all unless you think they might be falling all over each other in the bushes. . . . a movie theater is dark so I could see why someone might think that is iffy but even then . . . But I would see that as more of an issue between me and my spouse. If my spouse did feel uncomfortable with an activity like that then I wouldn't go. I don't run so my dh is safe from any running affairs I might start. I did go see a movie in Japanese with a friend from high school who was a guy - my dh didn't feel like reading the subtitles.

[Guest]

I don't think the point of this thread - or of anyone who has commented on it - was to give any universal rules. :confused:

I just wish people could state their opinions - on both sides - and not feel like they have to defend themselves or tell others how they should live.

JMO.

 

For sure. That would be why it was a poll. :laugh: I wanted to see how the majority views it and, happily, I got a very strong majority showing, so I don't need to wonder.

 

I'm just really glad that dh and I are unanimous in our feelings about this because it would really be not okay with me if he took a female friend to a baseball game because I don't particularly like sports or went to see a movie with my sister because she likes action films more than I do. :toetap05:

[kalanamak]

 

 

 

I'm just really glad that dh and I are unanimous in our feelings about this because it would really be not okay with me if he took a female friend to a baseball game because I don't particularly like sports or went to see a movie with my sister because she likes action films more than I do. :toetap05:

 

I think the unanimous in your feelings is the important part.

 

If hubby said I couldn't taking his sib to a movie, I would feel very mistrusted and fearful of abuse coming down the road. The only "jealous" bf I had in college ended up hitting me because he was sure I was after every piece of meat out there, and he took two years to get there. He didn't start that way, but that was the first steps down the road to a horror show.

[smandysen]

In giving my opinion, I was also stating what I felt for myself...not a universal rule. DH and I enjoy getting together with other couples. With our busy lives, we don't go out with other people very often and we gravitate towards couples who we enjoy the company of both the husband and wife. I can't think of anyone that we socialize with that doesn't fit that scenario right now.

 

As far as the workplace, I was able to work very well with men at my job. I just do not cultivate a personal relationship with them. I do find, however, working with men to be much easier than working with women. :)

 

Interesting discussion.