"Women and men cannot ever be friends." Agree or disagree

[heartlikealion]

I'm really not into arguing petty details TBH.  Folks said they can't imagine anything coming up that would make something like this necessary.  Something came up in our lives that did.  I suspect the same can happen in anyone's life.  Period.

 

For someone with strict guidelines about avoiding the type of situation you described, I would think they would say no to the teacher that is not feeling well. I don't know if you are their only option (substitute??). If you said, "sorry, I can't" would they find their own plan B for the class?

 

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, but just that I don't know if you outlined every possible outcome of how to handle the situation. Wouldn't most people just rely on orders from their vet? I wouldn't assume to always have a friend handy to help with aftercare of a pet.

 

[amy g.]

Last night I told Dh that some people believe it isn't the smartest choice in the world for men and women to be friends.

 

He said, "Ruh Roe"

 

The more I think about it the more I really believe that it really comes down to different personalities.

 

We wouldn't think an introvert is *wrong* for preferring a book to a party even if we are an extrovert ourselves.

 

Dh and 3 of our children are INTJ. I'm INTP. We do not make decisions based on emotion. Every action is thought out and calculated and and a decision is made from adding up the cold, hard data. People have told me to my face that they feel like this makes my relationships cold and unappealing. Guess what. I'm so not tempted to be friends with people who feel that way.

 

When Dh and I were talking last night, he acknowledged that he could see it would be a good guideline for people who are emotional and somewhat impulsive. But then he added, "But ugh! Why would anyone marry someone like that?"

 

My experience of having male friends and Dh having female friends has been overwhelmingly positive, but I think that is partly because we are not the type of people to get swept away in the moment and we are very much not attracted to people who are.

 

It doesn't make us better.

 

But it might explain why we can not even imagine needing these types or rules to manage our friendships and our marriage.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think that it is more than personality.  I think that it is also how we see men and women.  I do not see men as primarily sexual beings.  I don't see myself as primarily a sexual being.  Obviously men and women have sex and I think that is a delightful perk of marriage.  And we are sexual beings to some extent - but not primarily.  (I'm not talking about predators who seem to have the lust for sex or power take over their lives and seek to harm others.)  But most of my interactions with my husband have nothing to do with sex.  We are friends first and foremost.  And as best friends we do share intimate thoughts but we also share a lot of stuff that isn't particularly intimate:  jokes, ideas, stories about our day and our past and. . . I can go on.  All of that is what I would share with both a guy and a girl friend. 

 

And in that vein, I think that it is also about how we see friends.  I don't make or keep friendships with women that are too intimate in a needy sense where they share every intimate detail of their thought life and want me as primarily a counselor.  (I realize that we can all have needy times and that isn't what I'm talking about.)  One of the reasons why I have friendships that go back 40 years and we can pick up where we left off even though we only see each other about three times a year is because we primarily interact in the world of ideas.  We discuss philosophy and theology and science once we get through the five minutes or so of catching up on our family lives.  So I can have a delightful lunch with a guy friend and we can discuss books and there isn't anything "intimate" about it even though it sure is a lot of fun. 

[Scarlett]

I definitely do not primarily see anyone as a sexual being.

[EmseB]

I'm really not into arguing petty details TBH. Folks said they can't imagine anything coming up that would make something like this necessary. Something came up in our lives that did. I suspect the same can happen in anyone's life. Period.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, sorry my writing tone was off. Just continuing the discussion. :)

[creekland]

For someone with strict guidelines about avoiding the type of situation you described, I would think they would say no to the teacher that is not feeling well. I don't know if you are their only option (substitute??). If you said, "sorry, I can't" would they find their own plan B for the class?

 

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, but just that I don't know if you outlined every possible outcome of how to handle the situation. Wouldn't most people just rely on orders from their vet? I wouldn't assume to always have a friend handy to help with aftercare of a pet.

 

Yes, the teacher could get someone else.  She does whenever I'm not available, like when I'm traveling.  The difference is I can (and do) keep her class going with exactly what she would be doing if she were there.  I know the subject.  We know each other.  When she has to get a "normal" sub she has to plan busywork for the kids and it throws her schedule off.  Part of why I'm exclusively going in for her (as needed) this year is to keep her kids on track - so they get the whole course - not just the part she's able to be there for.  Fortunately, so far, our schedules have worked out quite nicely.  The kids appreciate it as much as she does - admin too.

 

With the gelding part, we've done oodles - more than I could count without looking at records.  This is her first.  It really makes sense that with us nearby she'd want us to share our expertise with her - what to do (when we can hands on show her), what to look for (when we can point), and when to worry (which is not often, but can happen).  I think most folks would prefer that to hoping they can interpret orders just fine.  When we were new to it, there were a handful of "what ifs" in our mind too.  We actually called the vet a couple of times when it wasn't necessary - we just didn't know.  If a knowledgeable friend had lived next door, it would have saved our time and the vet's.

 

One might not always have an experienced friend handy (for the subbing or the aftercare of a new gelding), but it sure is nicer and works better when that friend is there, and in this case, to us, it makes no sense whatsoever to not be there for both.

[Ravin]

I personally tend to mentally categorize people as "potential romantic involvements" vs. "not" based on several factors, none of which is their gender:

 

1. Their relationship status, including whether they are in a monogamous or poly marriage and, if the latter, what their particular rules are for their relationship's openness.

 

2. Whether I work with them--if I do, they are automatically in the "no possible romantic interest" category.

 

3. Age. If they're old enough to be my grandfather, or younger than my oldest niece, they're out.

 

These rules have never steered me wrong. It's about respect--if I'm going to be friends with someone, I have to have respect for them and their personal relationships. Ditto if I'm going to consider romantic involvement with someone. None of that has anything to do with gender. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Ravin

[heartlikealion]

Yes, the teacher could get someone else.  She does whenever I'm not available, like when I'm traveling.  The difference is I can (and do) keep her class going with exactly what she would be doing if she were there.  I know the subject.  We know each other.  When she has to get a "normal" sub she has to plan busywork for the kids and it throws her schedule off.  Part of why I'm exclusively going in for her (as needed) this year is to keep her kids on track - so they get the whole course - not just the part she's able to be there for.  Fortunately, so far, our schedules have worked out quite nicely.  The kids appreciate it as much as she does - admin too.

 

With the gelding part, we've done oodles - more than I could count without looking at records.  This is her first.  It really makes sense that with us nearby she'd want us to share our expertise with her - what to do (when we can hands on show her), what to look for (when we can point), and when to worry (which is not often, but can happen).  I think most folks would prefer that to hoping they can interpret orders just fine.  When we were new to it, there were a handful of "what ifs" in our mind too.  We actually called the vet a couple of times when it wasn't necessary - we just didn't know.  If a knowledgeable friend had lived next door, it would have saved our time and the vet's.

 

One might not always have an experienced friend handy (for the subbing or the aftercare of a new gelding), but it sure is nicer and works better when that friend is there, and in this case, to us, it makes no sense whatsoever to not be there for both.

 

Oh it's totally understandable and I can see why it's best for you rather than another sub to go. I just meant that someone might see the solutions to your situation not to end in "hubby must go over there" and choose to do something else like swing by to check on the horse after filling in for the sub. Or swapping texts or doing facetime when they get the chance. Again, nothing wrong with your solution assuming your friend wasn't uncomfortable with getting your dh instead of you. I actually recently asked my neighbors for help with something when dh was out of town (because at the time it seemed urgent for safety reasons - a security light when I was home alone. I had the light but needed help installing it). I requested both of them, but she was going to send her hubby over alone. In the end the timing didn't work out and I said don't worry, I'll have dh handle it later. I normally wouldn't have asked but I was really paranoid that week and my house alarm had gone off for no reason twice already. I was a nervous wreck.

 

[Mom-ninja.]

Thanks for the explanation. If I'm understanding, lust of the heart is fantasizing or having sexual thoughts about a person(s). I have lust of the heart then, but I don't try to avoid it. I will happily watch Lord of the Rings over and over with dh just to fantasize about some of the actors. 

[Bluegoat]

I think that it is more than personality.  I think that it is also how we see men and women.  I do not see men as primarily sexual beings.  I don't see myself as primarily a sexual being.  Obviously men and women have sex and I think that is a delightful perk of marriage.  And we are sexual beings to some extent - but not primarily.  (I'm not talking about predators who seem to have the lust for sex or power take over their lives and seek to harm others.)  But most of my interactions with my husband have nothing to do with sex.  We are friends first and foremost.  And as best friends we do share intimate thoughts but we also share a lot of stuff that isn't particularly intimate:  jokes, ideas, stories about our day and our past and. . . I can go on.  All of that is what I would share with both a guy and a girl friend. 

 

And in that vein, I think that it is also about how we see friends.  I don't make or keep friendships with women that are too intimate in a needy sense where they share every intimate detail of their thought life and want me as primarily a counselor.  (I realize that we can all have needy times and that isn't what I'm talking about.)  One of the reasons why I have friendships that go back 40 years and we can pick up where we left off even though we only see each other about three times a year is because we primarily interact in the world of ideas.  We discuss philosophy and theology and science once we get through the five minutes or so of catching up on our family lives.  So I can have a delightful lunch with a guy friend and we can discuss books and there isn't anything "intimate" about it even though it sure is a lot of fun. 

 

I don't know that you need to see people as mainly sexual beings in order to think a sexual interaction is a possibility.  I'm not even sure what the logic of that is.  Even people having one night stands on a regular basis don't likely imagine that the other person is "primarily" a sexual being.

 

There are some people who seem to think self-control around sexual issues is repression and unhealthy.  I tend to feel like that viewpoint is less popular than it used to be, though.

 

I think a more likely issue for people who might fall into an actual off-the-cuff sexual encounter is what is often called executive function issues.  There are a lot of people that have these kinds of problems, and certain things can make them worse, like alcohol.  It also will tend to affect other, non-sexual decisions.  I have a family member who made those kinds of stupid decisions when younger - e also did things like buy large tvs or cars he couldn't afford.

[heartlikealion]

Thanks for the explanation. If I'm understanding, lust of the heart is fantasizing or having sexual thoughts about a person(s). I have lust of the heart then, but I don't try to avoid it. I will happily watch Lord of the Rings over and over with dh just to fantasize about some of the actors. 

 

I don't always avoid tv shows with sex scenes and such, but I also find it more difficult to watch certain types of shows (like HBO stuff) because I just don't want all that imagery (whether it be extremely violent, lots of nudity, etc. I tried to watch Game of Thrones but it seemed a bit much for me). I don't necessarily fantasize about being with anyone on screen, but I'm a visual person and suffer from OCD so I have to be more conscious of what I let get in my brain if that makes sense.

 

[creekland]

I don't always avoid tv shows with sex scenes and such, but I also find it more difficult to watch certain types of shows (like HBO stuff) because I just don't want all that imagery (whether it be extremely violent, lots of nudity, etc. I tried to watch Game of Thrones but it seemed a bit much for me). I don't necessarily fantasize about being with anyone on screen, but I'm a visual person and suffer from OCD so I have to be more conscious of what I let get in my brain if that makes sense.

 

 

FWIW, I have never in my life watched a show or movie and lusted over any of the characters - or added them into my imaginary life, etc.  I'm pretty positive our (general human) brains are wired differently.

 

And I still avoid tv shows with too much sex (scenes or joking).  It just isn't what I like to watch.  I prefer plain old comedy or action or drama without the sex.  When shows like Royal Pains start having everyone jump into bed together or get too hung up on relationships (period), I tune out and yawn.  I can ignore some, but too much and it's just not my style.

Edited April 5, 2017 by creekland

[heartlikealion]

Apparently dh and I still aren't on the same page on the eating out with coworkers of the opposite sex one on one as he and a coworker did just that the other day.

 

FWIW, I have never in my life watched a show or movie and lusted over any of the characters - or added them into my imaginary life, etc.  I'm pretty positive our (general human) brains are wired differently.

 

And I still avoid tv shows with too much sex (scenes or joking).  It just isn't what I like to watch.  I prefer plain old comedy or action or drama without the sex.  When shows like Royal Pains start having everyone jump into bed together or get too hung up on relationships (period), I tune out and yawn.  I can ignore some, but too much and it's just not my style.

 

Yeah, I don't have to have lingering mental images to just prefer not to see a lot of that.