Board index › Age/Gender related discussions › In-Depth Adult Life Discussion

What do you make of this social comment?

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,370

11 Feb 2011, 10:54 am

Quote:
Conversation Between the Sexes

Sex is always in the background of any conversation between a man and a woman, and if there is no attraction there is often antagonism.

[Milton Wright, 1936]
http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm
Scroll just less than halfway down the page and you'll see it.

I know I shouldn't take this guy too seriously, but I'd like to know whether you think he's right or wrong on that particular point. I've always felt that sexuality does indeed tend to get in the way of relating with the opposite sex in cases where a sexual relationship would not be appropriate, but that with maturity and reasonable self-discipline it's possible to learn to override it and enjoy the company of women as people.

I don't like the way he then advocates running with that "fact" and turning it to advantage.

So what is it, a malicious piece of sexist drivel, or a basic fact of life that any factory girl could have told me? Do we ever feel 100% platonic with the opposite sex, and if we can't, is it better to run with it or fight it?



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

11 Feb 2011, 10:57 am

Makes sense to me. They say that men think of sex every seven seconds, don't they?



deadeyexx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 758

11 Feb 2011, 11:16 am

If there is any possibility of sex in either person's mind, then the statement is true.

The only way to get rid of this issue is to relieve the tension by either A) having sex, or B) mutually agreeing to no possibility of sex. I find either decision liberating, as I then know what to do.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

11 Feb 2011, 11:24 am

I think it's just his opinion, and true for himself. I think about sex nearly constantly (and I'm a woman), I just don't picture it with everyone I encounter. That's a complete disconnect, to me. Your mileage may vary, of course.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

11 Feb 2011, 11:32 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Do we ever feel 100% platonic with the opposite sex, and if we can't, is it better to run with it or fight it?

The underlying temptation or thought is almost always there in my own case, and I find it best to "fight it", so to speak, and to just put it down in order to share true friendship with women I might have otherwise pursued and ultimately hurt in one way or another.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Aimless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,187

11 Feb 2011, 11:43 am

My counselor told me once that sex was always a component when a man and a woman interact, even just as friends. Maybe it's true for the man but it's not for me.



wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

11 Feb 2011, 11:50 am

I think the When Harry Met Sally viewpoint is overdone.

As deadeyexx said, if there is tension then there's two ways to handle it and for those people to go on from there.

A glaring problem I see in these discussions is that they're heteronormative. There's no accountability for homosexuality. When we consider that homosexuality is as basic as heterosexuality in nature, the idea that a man and woman cannot be friends "because the sex thing is always out there" is irrelevant. Then we have to think that bisexual people aren't able to be friends with anybody because the sex would always be "out there". It gets unrealistic quickly. But as to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, since I think there is a valid question in there... What we could possibly discuss would be if a xsexual individual is able to be platonic with someone who is the sex that they are generally attracted to and while that seems reasonable to me, we would turn it up by asking if that individual can remain truly platonic with someone whom they do find attractive.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,370

11 Feb 2011, 11:58 am

deadeyexx wrote:
The only way to get rid of this issue is to relieve the tension by either A) having sex

But I'm married, and even if I wasn't, there would be too many women for me to have sex with. And it would ruin any hope of a platonic friendship - it wouldn't stop the couple fancying each other or feeling sexually bonded at all.
Quote:
or B) mutually agreeing to no possibility of sex.

I tried that once but it backfired. She agreed we wouldn't, but she didn't push me away when my resolve broke. Then later on she asked me to make it platonic but again as soon as I came on to her, she just accepted it. The urge was too strong. And I think that a lot of affairs are preceded by a pact like that, both will agree that they don't hold with infidelity, but it's often an excuse to get into private situations.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,370

11 Feb 2011, 12:14 pm

wefunction wrote:
I think the When Harry Met Sally viewpoint is overdone.

A glaring problem I see in these discussions is that they're heteronormative. There's no accountability for homosexuality. When we consider that homosexuality is as basic as heterosexuality in nature, the idea that a man and woman cannot be friends "because the sex thing is always out there" is irrelevant. Then we have to think that bisexual people aren't able to be friends with anybody because the sex would always be "out there". It gets unrealistic quickly. But as to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, since I think there is a valid question in there... What we could possibly discuss would be if a xsexual individual is able to be platonic with someone who is the sex that they are generally attracted to and while that seems reasonable to me, we would turn it up by asking if that individual can remain truly platonic with someone whom they do find attractive.


Yes, the original author I quoted has forgotten all about gays and bisexuals (and asexuals). And yes it could give the biggest problem for bisexuals, with nobody they could be really platonic with. I knew the partner of a bi lady who (in her own words) couldn't trust her with anybody. Rather him than me! I'm mostly interested in the standard heterosexual thing here, but contributions from/about other sexual orientations are also very welcome.



Last edited by ToughDiamond on 11 Feb 2011, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,370

11 Feb 2011, 12:22 pm

leejosepho wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Do we ever feel 100% platonic with the opposite sex, and if we can't, is it better to run with it or fight it?

The underlying temptation or thought is almost always there in my own case, and I find it best to "fight it", so to speak, and to just put it down in order to share true friendship with women I might have otherwise pursued and ultimately hurt in one way or another.

That sounds like me. 8) Sometimes I wish we were like dogs, with a short mating season and asexuality for the rest of the time. I might settle for a pheremone alarm. Something to make Cupid plain for all to see.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,370

11 Feb 2011, 12:35 pm

Aimless wrote:
My counselor told me once that sex was always a component when a man and a woman interact, even just as friends. Maybe it's true for the man but it's not for me.

Yes I've heard that many women don't feel these sexual urges like men do. Could be that they're a lot more specific and level-headed about it than men. I've heard too that to a male chimpanzee, there's no such thing as an undesirable female chimp. I guess the females are more discerning. Presumably all to do with who stands to lose, when there's no contraception. And I don't think the human psyche has caught up with contraception yet. All the fears and desires are still to do with reproduction rather than sex itself, I believe - otherwise sex could be seen as no more significant than sharing a taxi.



wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

11 Feb 2011, 2:15 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
wefunction wrote:
I think the When Harry Met Sally viewpoint is overdone.

A glaring problem I see in these discussions is that they're heteronormative. There's no accountability for homosexuality. When we consider that homosexuality is as basic as heterosexuality in nature, the idea that a man and woman cannot be friends "because the sex thing is always out there" is irrelevant. Then we have to think that bisexual people aren't able to be friends with anybody because the sex would always be "out there". It gets unrealistic quickly. But as to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, since I think there is a valid question in there... What we could possibly discuss would be if a xsexual individual is able to be platonic with someone who is the sex that they are generally attracted to and while that seems reasonable to me, we would turn it up by asking if that individual can remain truly platonic with someone whom they do find attractive.


Yes, the original author I quoted has forgotten all about gays and bisexuals (and asexuals). And yes it could give the biggest problem for bisexuals, with nobody they could be really platonic with. I knew the partner of a bi lady who (in her own words) couldn't trust her with anybody. Rather him than me! I'm mostly interested in the standard heterosexual thing here, but contributions from/about other sexual orientations are also very welcome.


My point was that the question posed is easily debunked and meaningless. I reworked the question into something plausible; but there still remains gaping holes of unaddressed factors, such as the sexual morality of the individual, any past traumas and sex addiction.

This is no reflection on you, of course, ToughDiamond. I'm waging a stern finger at the psychology of the early 20th century, which was certainly lagging in comparison to what psychology could offer today.



hartzofspace
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,138
Location: On the Road Less Traveled

11 Feb 2011, 3:33 pm

I agree that it is different for women than for men. I am more capable of being platonic friends with a man, than most men are capable of being the same with me. I have also been hit on by lesbians, who didn't understand why I was offended. I am fairly attractive, and often have craved a platonic friendship with absolutely no sexual tension in it. It can get awfully tiresome, especially if I am not sexually attracted to the person in question! And it makes me feel that I am viewed as an object, not a complete person with more to offer than just meaningless sex.


_________________
Dreams are renewable. No matter what our age or condition, there are still untapped possibilities within us and new beauty waiting to be born.
-- Dr. Dale Turner


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,370

13 Feb 2011, 9:36 am

wefunction wrote:
My point was that the question posed is easily debunked and meaningless. I reworked the question into something plausible; but there still remains gaping holes of unaddressed factors, such as the sexual morality of the individual, any past traumas and sex addiction.

This is no reflection on you, of course, ToughDiamond. I'm waging a stern finger at the psychology of the early 20th century, which was certainly lagging in comparison to what psychology could offer today.

Yes I think we're basically on the same page.

I guess I'm wondering whether sexual orientation is generally too strong/nonspecific for the human race to ever fully relax when they're not supposed to be on the pull. I'd be amazed if the author was right and there were no exceptions, but I suspect he may be right as a general rule.



rf
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 38

19 Feb 2011, 12:27 am

Quote:
Sex is always in the background of any conversation between a man and a woman, and if there is no attraction there is often antagonism.

No bells ringing there. One might argue that that comes from being a K6 dyke, but in truth, I think it's mostly just a blindness to flirting. Unless someone does something so blatant that even I detect it, or if the situation is such that I am on the lookout (e.g. certain kinds of party) any interest s/he might show is going to be invisible. If there is anger or attraction, it must be one-sided.

So there is at least one class of person for whom that quote is so foreign as to be meaningless.



rf
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 38

19 Feb 2011, 12:28 am

Quote:
Sex is always in the background of any conversation between a man and a woman, and if there is no attraction there is often antagonism.

No bells ringing there. One might argue that that comes from being a K6 lesbian, but in truth, I think it's mostly just a blindness to flirting. Unless someone does something so blatant that even I detect it, or if the situation is such that I am on the lookout (e.g. certain kinds of party) any interest s/he might show is going to be invisible. If there is anger or attraction, it must be one-sided.

So there is at least one class of person for whom that quote is so foreign as to be meaningless.