Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 QT3.18
Joined: 2/1/2013
Msg: 1115
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sexPage 48 of 50    (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)

Nobody's saying that. Even if you're 'too close' to an OS friend -- nobody's saying you're a criminal or a swinger, etc.


Actually, yes they are, if you read some of the posts. Not only are we criminals and swingers, we are also latent homosexuals, cheaters, homely, clueless, polyamorous morons, with loose morals and fake profiles.
 Happy_gal2013
Joined: 12/30/2012
Msg: 1116
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/23/2013 5:04:33 PM
I read the ops question and a few pages. I see strong opinions on both sides of the coin. I'm not working this weekend so I'll read through the 47 pages. Ok, so there was a post that was deleted. I can understand that. But I still have a Right to my opinion.

Until then can you tell me which ones are the criminals and swingers, latent homosexuals, cheaters, homely, clueless, polyamorous morons, with loose morals and fake profiles? Has anyone check their panty drawers lately? Ok, don't get uptight I'm just joking.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1117
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/23/2013 5:07:54 PM
Apparently, the concept of "over-sharing" is as alien to some of you, as is the concept of "respectful treatment"...
 DonJ77
Joined: 2/8/2013
Msg: 1119
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/23/2013 9:11:41 PM
But *some basic* boundaries apply to all when entering into a monogamous situation, By Default. :) Those basic, most common-sense ones. Like not taking 1-on-1 trips together with an OS friend and sleeping in the same bed. It's not "cool" by default. It's your obligation to tell the new significant-other-to-be that you roll that way, at least.

And let's say if/when you did In That (Common-Sense) Example Above, one of my points is that you can't blame them for being a 'jealous person' or a 'sensitive person', and your rules are just fine and they're too-strict. Implying they're too strict would indicate that it's more strict that society, but more importantly the normalized human condition. It'd be YOU (if you were in that position) who would be the outlier, who would not be in any position to criticize Jane Q Public for having issue with that... and for good reason too, because Jane Q Public sees the obvious issue in that as far as monogamy, the human condition, and what usually ends up happening among people in that level of situation.


I agree with you. And the rest of what you said, even if I'm not quoting it all.

We have to talk things out if we suspect we're out of the norm, as far as boundaries go. The basics - the "default" ones - themselves can move, depending on people. So communication - from the start - is necessary.

No problem with any of that. :)
 riuser
Joined: 8/31/2010
Msg: 1120
view profile
History
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/23/2013 11:04:45 PM
I do not think it is a one size fits all situation. I believe that we can have platonic OS friends. I believe that an honest, trustworthy person will not cheat. I do not care what the circumstance. Therefore, one should be able to trust their partner. It should be other people that you might not trust. But that should not make you feel insecure about your partner. If one of these OS friends makes a move on your partner, they should be extricated from both of your lives. They are not a platonic friend and not honorable. On the other hand, a true friend would never do that. Thus, in my opinion, they were never a friend to begin with.

That being said, unfortunately we live in a society where appearances matter. Therefore, your behavior should be respectful to how it would appear to your partners friends/acquaintances/business associates/families. All of this matters. In some circles more than others. Appropriate respect for your partner would be to respect how your actions might reflect upon them. Which is not the same as if you trust your partner or not. Jealousy is simply a sign of insecurity. That is different than what I am saying. I might be ok with my SO going on a 1 on 1 trip with her best friend of years (OS - as that is what we are talking about). But out of respect, because of how it might adversely impact my business relations or how my family would react, I would hope it would not happen. But if it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, I would not care so much. On the other hand, I would not be so comfortable with her spooning with an OS friend - that should just be between us. It would not make me jealous. But if we felt differently on this subject, I am not sure that she would be right for me (or vice versa). For me, close physical contact like that should be just between me and my partner. Not with anyone else (be it OS or SS). Some might feel differently.

As I said before, I do not think of it as a trust issue. A cheater will cheat. Probably earlier if they are given the opportunity. Which is fine with me because I would rather know sooner than later.

So I believe that OS friendships are possible. That the "boundaries" are, at least for me, out of respect for appearances. But in general, a friendship is just that - a friendship. I may not know the OS friend enough to trust them. But I know my partner well enough to trust them and their judgment.

Yes, untrustworthy cheaters are possibly going to espouse a similar viewpoint so that they could have more opportunities. But, after a while, one can determine who is an honest, trustworthy person (male or female). But, and I may have been lucky, I have only dated trustworthy women. We might not have been compatible in all aspects. But at least they were honest people. (By the way, I do not have any really close OS friends).
 AnEvilGenius1
Joined: 6/5/2012
Msg: 1121
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 8:44:28 AM

Apparently, the concept of "over-sharing" is as alien to some of you, as is the concept of "respectful treatment"...


Pfffft!

You like the others do not care about the respectful treatment of others, it's all about the respect you believe you should be shown, and that's not respect, it's validation.

I think the best part about this thread is seeing how many of you see a partner cheating as a direct reflection of yourselves and the many different ways it effect you.. Bwuahahahaha.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1123
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 10:09:48 AM
(anotnicesmarterthanaverageguy1) I think the best part about this thread is seeing how many of you see a partner cheating as a direct reflection of yourselves and the many different ways it effect you.. Bwuahahahaha.


The word you were looking for, Daniel Webster, is "affects", the verb, and not "effect", the noun. Normally, I wouldn't get all up in someone's @$$ ab0ut grammar, but I'm making an exception here because 1) anevilgenius1 tries to pass himself off as some sort of smart guy, but his grammar (and logic) are Ozark-rate, at best; and, 2) because I'm a little devil, with too much time on my hands.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1124
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 10:14:01 AM
(mysterios_stranger) But then, that one day, out of nowhere, she is having a bad night, and the guy that comes up to her just seems too good to be true- she decides to drink a bit too much and then does something she never thought she'd do and go home with him on a whim.


You're playing right into the sloppy-boundaries people with this. They want to argue as if cheating is the only possible objection anyone can have to an SO getting all chummy-chummy and 1-on-1 with an OS friend, and that any recalcitrance is therefore indicative of distrust on the part of the person who wants proper decorum in a relationship.

People in a relationship cannot carry on as if they are still single. That's the bottom line, and you have to be a web-footed inbred to believe and argue seriously that they can and should.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 1125
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 10:21:52 AM
ms
I know you are trying to be fair and balanced in this discussion.
But some of the things that you speak of-the girl who goes out clubbing without incident, intil one night she's having a spell of anger or unhappiness and cheats on her SO.
I'm NOT condoning that, BUT! people are human beings, they have bad days, they make mistakes. Maybe they have one too many drinks, spend a little more money than they should have, or they are going through a difficult patch in their pair-bond relationship, so they either slip up and cheat once, or even(where the hell is disreputable-dave when you NEED him??)-believe themselves hard done by, and make an ARRANGEMENT for regular cheating. Again, I condone NONE of this-but if people are so terrified of their SO cheating on them, then I guess they better never let that SO out of their sight for even a minute.
It's getting OLD-but may I again remind everyone that the OT concerned a CONVERSATION between 2 people living in different countries(and probably conversing by phone or electronic media) about simply having a platonic friends of the opposite sex. There was NOTHING about committed relationships, sleeping in the same beds, people with fake profiles, people with no boundaries and therefore no morals, in the OT.
I had something occur to me when I was out having fun last night...
Perhaps( remember this is just thought/speculation on my part) these folks who report that all their OS platonic friends eventually try to have sex with them-

Is it possible that the person trying to turn the interaction sexual, have decided that the object of their attention has proved to be "not friendship material", so they are trying to get SOMETHING out of it for the time and energy invested?
And yeah, putting aside strict political correctness, I suspect that this would occur more with a male platonic friend trying to "get a leg over"a female platonic friend.
Anyway, what do you all think? Are perhaps some of these cases of a male platonic friend converting and trying to grab a piece off a female platonic friend, actually a case of the guy deciding the woman isn't "friendship material", after all? And trying to make (in his perception) the "best of the situation"?
Just an alternate theory...
Cindy O
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1126
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 10:43:11 AM

(ladyc4) I'm NOT condoning that, BUT! people are human beings, they have bad days, they make mistakes.


Very true. And *ADULTS* own up to their mistakes, and take actions to avoid/minimize damage.

Does buying fire insurance for your house indicate that you are convinced it'll burn down one day, or that you're in the habit of leaving the oven on? I dunno about YOU, but I call it good sense...


or they are going through a difficult patch in their pair-bond relationship,


Yeah, that's the way to resolve difficulties within the relationship: have an adulterous fling outside of it!


Again, I condone NONE of this-but if people are so terrified of their SO cheating on them, then I guess they better never let that SO out of their sight for even a minute.
It's getting OLD-


I agree: it *IS* getting old, having to repeatedly point out that cheating is not the *ONLY* reason for objecting to chummy-chummy, 1-on-1 relationships with OS friends while in a romantic relationship.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 1127
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 11:11:37 AM
The OT simply asked the question

So what do u think can we have plutonic friendships with ppl of the opposite sex?

It did not ask about plAtonic friendships with relation to pair-bond relationships, it didn't ask about boundaries,it didn't ask about platonic OS friends sleeping in the same bed, it didn't make any reference to one's platonic friends INVARIABLY trying to get a leg over.
All that got added in by other posters.
And anyway, I'd like to hear reactions to my academic speculation as to whether-in some instances- OS friends who try to turn things sexual, don't do that because they've decided that the object of their proposition isn't "friend material" after all?
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 1128
view profile
History
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 11:17:43 AM
However, I think 90 to 95% of the population is more situational than that, and with them you have to build trust over time, and trust is built from people making sacrifices to protect a relationship

I agree with you that many things are situational, and I think that's part of the point of many pro-OS people; there is no one-size-fits all.

and with them you have to build trust over time, and trust is built from people making sacrifices to protect a relationship

I know someone who tried to build trust with his wife over 7 years through his words and actions. In the end he has no friends of his own, and he still can't be out of her sight without her becoming upset; despite his efforts she is no more reassured or trusting than she was at the beginning of the relationship. Ultimately, he became depressed and is now on medication and is in counseling. What he has realized through counseling is that he needs the freedom to be able to live his life with some degree of freedom and this couple has separated.

Ultimately, I disagree that "sacrifice" builds trust; I think compromise is more likely to build trust because it involves both people working together as a team. If someone is insecure, they get some of what they need, but may also have to stretch themselves to accommodate their partner. If the other person is a little too independent, they don't have to give it all up but they may have to work a little harder to include/rely on their partner.


PLUS- I think you can spot a psychopathic cheater a mile away by how they react to a person being uncomfortable about lose boundaries.

You know, I think you may be mistaken in this. I think a psychopath will agree with what you say to keep you smiling, and then do whatever the heck they want. When caught, they'll deny, deny, deny - possibly so convincingly that you wonder if maybe you aren't the one who's wrong. That's the thing about psychopaths; their particular makeup makes it very easy for them to manipulate and mislead the average person.

Personally, if I had issues with a girl's OS friends and her initial reactions were calling me insecure or controlling, I would walk REGARDLESS of what she decided she would do next- I don't care if she a week later said she agreed, or 5 minutes later. The initial reaction would make me think she had a high chance of being one of the psychopathic non-trustable cheater types

I'd say a person who gets upset if you ask him/her to give up their OS friends in order to be in a relationship with you is probably genuinely upset, and that the two of you would not be compatible. If they did call you controlling and insecure, it is no different than you deciding that they must be psychopathic cheaters due to their reaction.
 Fleuron
Joined: 8/18/2010
Msg: 1131
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 12:08:28 PM
ladyc4:
Are perhaps some of these cases of a male platonic friend converting and trying to grab a piece off a female platonic friend, actually a case of the guy deciding the woman isn't "friendship material", after all? And trying to make (in his perception) the "best of the situation"?
Just an alternate theory...


My opinion is that there probably isn’t a “conversion” in his thinking; more likely it’s been there all along. He probably got tired of pretending to be a friend to her, while covertly hoping, and perhaps scheming, that one of these days she’ll suddenly become physically attracted to him, or emotionally vulnerable, or temporarily insane and do him.

Real friends don’t decide a friend isn’t “friendship material,” and feel the need to attempt to manipulate sex from her as a way of compensation for time invested, IMO.

Sounds to me like a self-serving, deceitful opportunist…not a friend.


So what do u think can we have plutonic friendships with ppl of the opposite sex?


Really? “Plutonic?” I’ll take the quote from ladyc4’s post since I don’t have the patience or inclination to try to decipher the mess of incoherent run on sentences in the OP.

I have platonic male friends, and have all my life. Most have been like brothers to me.
There have been times when a male friend has expressed a romantic interest in me; my romantic relationships have usually started out as friendship anyway. But they didn’t try to have sex with me as a way to transition….being my friends first, they knew better.

When I’m in a romantic relationship, my SO comes first….and my friends, male and female, understand that.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 1132
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 12:11:01 PM
Now as for single people having close os friendships- I don't have any problem with that.


elieve it or not-that was the question asked in the OT-whether people can have platonic friendships with the opposite gender.
How all this stuff about being disrespectful to SOs, about having no boundaries, and all that other stuff got into the discussion is what has me baffled.

quote]Of course we do think of some girls as just friends- but nobody seems to be taking this girls on things that seem like dates or calling them up frequently.
Of course not, because then they would be girlfriends. However-and this is the tricky part...there are tons and tons of people of both genders who have activities and interests BEYOND clubbing, or who exceptionally enjoy a friends'(regardless of gender) exceptional knack for humor, good conversation or discussing a particular area of mutual interest.
But apparently, to show proper boundaries, when in a relationship one must abandon all that, and the ONLY thing they can do for social/recreational interest must be in the company of the SO?


If you are single and going out with os friends it probably fills a void you get from dating-

I think you mean from NOT dating?-but anyway, not everyone feels a"void" in their lives if they aren't dating.
There are people who prefer to meet in the context of a shared interest or activity and don't require "dating" to be a part of the process of pair-bonding. And some people are not all that interested in a pair-bond relationship.
I've seen pair-bond relationships form between men and women who never truly "dated", and I've seen people of both genders who regarded their friends as friends with only minimal concern about what was between their friends legs. Their lives aren't all about getting set up in a "relationship", and they have absolutely no feeling that there is a "void" in their lives.

As for your case of a guy eventually feeling the girl is not friendship material and then because of that making a move later- ive never seen it.

I've never seen the dark side of the moon-but I would certainly never stand up and say it can't possibly exist becaue I have never PERSONALLY seen it.
Really, I hadn't ever given it a lot of thought, but given the people here who report that their OS friends ALWAYS end up trying to get sexual eventually-I cannot help but wonder if there isn't a "not friendship material but I'll see if I can f*ck her a few times before I completely remove myself from contact with her" category . Perhaps it's a way for some cowardly people to evict "not friend material" from their lives,by having them get all butthurt about "being used for sex"?
Yeah, I don't know where I get some of these ideas, either! But I think it might be a good discussion that is closely related to the OT and other matters that have come up in this thread.
ETA

Real friends don’t decide a friend isn’t “friendship material,” and feel the need to attempt to manipulate sex from her as a way of compensation for time invested, IMO.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you, and if an honorable person decided, in time that they didn't want to be friends with another person, they would tell that person or at the least would cease contact. But it sounds like a lot of people here know a lot of people who apparently aren't very honorable, so I thought the question was worth asking.
ETA2
When I’m in a romantic relationship, my SO comes first….and my friends, male and female, understand that.

I am sure that this is how it is for most people-and how it should be. And the OT didn't ASK whether being in(or not in) a relationship would dictate a different answer to the question.
However, occasionally there IS an unusual set of circumstances where someone in a committed relationship might spend friendship/activity time with a platonic friend-activity that has NOTHING to do with sex! I don't think it's fair to write all those people and situations off as cheaters, swingers, immoral or whatever.
Yeah, sleeping in the same bed might be a bit much. Though in some of the camping/athletic endeavors I have pursued, OS friends sometimes shared the only bed in the camper. LOL-"trail husbands" and "trail wives" relationships are not uncommon.
And other than mutual support in the context, these "marriages are ULTRA-platonic.
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 1134
view profile
History
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 1:51:10 PM

But who would need to date somebody that sleeps in beds with other os friends for any reason?

I read this and immediately thought of what I'd heard about the Inuit, that they'd loan out their wives sometimes. Then I wondered if maybe that was an Urban myth, so did some research. It seems that the Inuit's culture valued sharing very highly, and disdained jealousy and possesiveness; thus, a childless couple could adopt children from family/friends, and husbands weren't adverse to sometimes letting other men sleep with their wives. Not quite the same as OS friends, but it does illustrate the fact that what you and I find normal and acceptable may be entirely abnormal for someone else, or even an entire other culture.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 1135
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 2:19:46 PM

but it does illustrate the fact that what you and I find normal and acceptable may be entirely abnormal for someone else, or even an entire other culture.

Indeed.
And as far as the "trail spouses"-why did I expect anyone to understand that without making ASSumptions.
Anyway-I'm sure it will never be an issue for ms to date any of them, as most are married and have children and even grandchildren in some cases. And most of them have been married to the same official spouse for many years.
Yes, that is a "niche" scenario. But people of both genders sometimes do pursue activities, hobbies and recreational interests-and there are occasions where their SOs do not share their interests.
But yeah, I imagine some people would demand that ONLY mutual interests be allowed, and that neither one of the couple could have any social activity unless in each others' company. For some people, maybe thats' the ONLY way they can have a relationship and not be eaten up by anxieties about their partner trying something on with an OS friend or acquaintance.
Cindy O
 Dare to
Joined: 2/11/2009
Msg: 1137
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 5:26:28 PM

that's like "oh he s just my work husband!!!" Um- no thanks. Ill pass on that kind of girl
That term is used regularly among my workmates... It's tongue in cheek for acknowledging that we often spend more time with our work partner than we do with our SO... I doubt that every paramedic out there who uses the term is "that type of person"

A question I asked in the deleted thread on this subject... There are many of you who take exception to having lunch at work with an OS friend.. How on earth would you deal with people like me who work 12 -14 hours a day/night often with an OS partner?? We eat together, if we have a slow night shift we will sleep in the same room, we spend almost every minute of our shift a couple of feet away from each other.. I worked with the same male partner for 11 months straight.. Do you really think we are all not to be trusted? Would you insist I change my job? Or would you just refuse to date someone who worked as a paramedic or cop because we work with OS partners?

For some reason ,my husband is proud of what I do for a job, not hung up on the fact that I often work closely with males...
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1139
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 7:23:30 PM
4ms4me: most of us don't take our relationship cues from Innu, though. And, even you state in your message, that they lend out their wives SOMETIMES, under SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, and your message suggests that the husbands know about it beforehand, and aren't arguing with their wives about "insecurity", or being "controlling"... Try again...
 AnEvilGenius1
Joined: 6/5/2012
Msg: 1140
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/24/2013 10:52:15 PM

The word you were looking for, Daniel Webster, is "affects", the verb, and not "effect", the noun. Normally, I wouldn't get all up in someone's @$$ ab0ut grammar, but I'm making an exception here because 1) anevilgenius1 tries to pass himself off as some sort of smart guy, but his grammar (and logic) are Ozark-rate, at best; and, 2) because I'm a little devil, with too much time on my hands.


1. Spell checking is a last resort for people unable to refute or debate and a last ditch effort to discredit the person rather then the comment.

2. It's a well known fact that spelling is not connected to intelligence. You prove that with every properly spelled word you post.

3. Using the word logic doesn't add any to your posts, it just shows you know how to spell the word.

But nice try at avoiding the issue of your self centered, self serving, egotistical and manipulative use of "respect".
You people do not get into relationships, you get into co dependent hostage situations.
 QT3.18
Joined: 2/1/2013
Msg: 1141
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/25/2013 12:49:09 AM

4ms4me: most of us don't take our relationship cues from Innu, though. And, even you state in your message, that they lend out their wives SOMETIMES, under SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, and your message suggests that the husbands know about it beforehand, and aren't arguing with their wives about "insecurity", or being "controlling"... Try again...


She didn't say the Innu. She said the Inuit. Two different groups. :)

Normally, I wouldn't get all up in someone's @$$ about culture and geography, Juan Ponce de Leon, but I'm making an exception here, because if you take issue with such minor things as a spelling error or typo, I'm sure you would like to know the proper reference to culture and geography.

You're welcome. :D
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1142
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/25/2013 5:47:35 AM
QT3.18: "Innu" is referring to the group.

It's painful to watch the pseudo-intellectuals here...
 _babblefish
Joined: 9/23/2011
Msg: 1143
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/25/2013 6:59:45 AM

It's painful to watch the pseudo-intellectuals here...


it's even funnier when the pedantic are wrong . . and illogical
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 1144
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/25/2013 7:11:28 AM
(DarkSideoftheForceguywithahighfunctioningbrain1) 1. Spell checking is a last resort for people unable to refute or debate and a last ditch effort to discredit the person rather then the comment.


I wasn't all up in your grill about spelling, but about grammar. Two different beasts. Anyway, this is exactly the retort one would expect. You disappoint me with your adherence to conventionality, sir.


2. It's a well known fact that spelling is not connected to intelligence. You prove that with every properly spelled word you post.


You'd better hope that's true...


3. Using the word logic doesn't add any to your posts, it just shows you know how to spell the word.


In my case, I know how to spell the word, *AND* how to apply the concept, Bunky.


(QT3.18) Normally, I wouldn't get all up in someone's @$$ about culture and geography, Juan Ponce de Leon...


Who was an explorer, not an anthropologist. Epic fail.

By the way, thanks for the imitative flattery!
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 1145
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/25/2013 7:15:32 AM

I wouldn't date somebody working the night shift and weekends either.
OMG-
There sure are a lot of people you wouldn't date simply because of their work hours or the nature of their occupation.
That is of course your perfect right.
As far as social/recreational activities sans SO-good grief!-there are TONS of couples who manage to do BOTH.
When a OS friendship forms in relation to a mutual interest/endeavor( a hobby, entertainment interest, recreational pursuit, OR career), "he-in and she-in"isn't even on the radar.

most people aren't so selfish as to only do things they want to do in relationships. I don't know who you dated that gave you that impression.

That is not what I meant and I think you KNOW that. I have seen couples where there was stress/unhappiness because there was either a total insistence on only socializing/recreation pursuits together,or because one of the partners was expected to abandon an interest that the other one didn't like. I've also seen stress and unhappiness because the couple spent almost zero social/recreational time together. But I'm not saying ALL couples I've seen are unhappy/stressed about their policy regarding social and recreational pursuits.

maybe the guys in your relationships were selfish jerks. Perhaps you're not used to good relationships if you think doing things together doesn't mean doing things you both like AND things your so likes.


You would be BEYOND dead wrong to think that about me. I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you are saing that one party in a relationship gets to decide what things are "liked".


your gf still gets to do the things she likes and doesn't need side boyfriends to take her out.


This is where this benighted thread keeps getting STUPID.
The OT made no reference to "side boyfriends". It simply asked for opinions as to whether a platonic friendship could exist between 2 members of the opposite sex. Yes, I understand that some felt it important to point out the "threat" that OS friendships poses to pair-bond relationship. Yes, I understand that there are situaions where an OS friendship did damage a relationship, but it sounds to me like a lot of people here are advocating mutual social isolation/"coccooning" for pair-bond partners. If that is the way they have to conduct their lives then that is fine, but I do not accept that those people have any right to condemn/insult other people who don't
think couplehood requires an abandonment of individual personhood.

Life is not so hard in a relationship

I don't think anybody here said it was. But I think most adults who actually get out of their houses do see relationships where one partner is very possessive/controlling of the other partner. We do see relationships where one party is afraid to have any but the slightest socialization with others outside the relationship because the partner will be angry.
While I personally don't have-and really never did-have much interest in "girls night out"-I find it a bit telling that a man might refuse to let his gf/so go out with female friends to a club occasionally. I've seen plenty of "girls night out" groups when I spent more time in bars/clubs(because of friendship with local bands) where nobody was looking to set up a fling or obtain a 'side boyfriend'.
Sorry ms, I mean you no disrespect but I have got to make the observation that(IMO) your insecurities are beginning to show through. The OT of this thread was NOT "side boyfriends."
Message# 1197 simply re-inforces my opinion.

this also goes to show relationships are way more important than friendships as your partner will be around even when your friends are too busy with their own lives.
And what if the partner dies? What happens when a relationship or marriage breaks up and all the friends are essentially associated with the dominant partner? No, this did not happen to me because my marriage allowed us to be individuals in our own right as well as a couple.

LOL, for about a year, I rode to work(2nd shift) with a MAN who worked in my department and went right past my house.
It served to share gas costs and I think my husband felt I was a bit safer not driving home alone at 3 am. But it sounds like some of the men here would have filed for divorce.

As for guy friends trying to have sex with girl friends to ruin their friendships with them... well - what guy is that socially insane?? Lol. "The only way I can get rid of this crazy bxxxx is to sleep with her! That'll get her out of my life!!!" Lmao

Actually, I've had platonic guy acquaintances say EXACTLY that...( I'm going to categorize them as "acquaintances" rather than "friends"-I don't LIKE that behavior!), so I suspect that school of thought does exist.

As for other cultures, biblical history,etc...I think we have somehow gotten too much concerned about OS friends with respect to relationships, and that was not what the OT asked.
Obviously, when a person who has been unpartnered gets involved in a pair-bond, both people have to do some adapting.
But the OT here was over the idea that her US friend told our Brit OP-that men are NEVER "just friends" with women, they only pretend to be so, as to get a chance to get into the womens' pants. And other female posters have reported that their male platonic friends always end up trying to "get a leg over"...I'm not sure I'd care to publicize that if it was my "inevitable" experience. It seems to me like this would indicate some kind of cue was being given that would cause these men to entertain that hope. I guess I'd be pretty disgusted with myself and the world(and maybe these posters ARE?) if I was always finding out that every man I know was more focused on what's between my legs, rather than what's between my ears.
Cindy O
 NDTfan
Joined: 6/5/2012
Msg: 1146
u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 5/25/2013 7:26:57 AM

Although some posters seem to have boundaries they think should apply to all.


Yup, they keep spewing things like "respect" and "normal" and "vast majority"... apparently they don't realize that they can only speak for themselves. What they're doing is employing logically fallacious "arguments" centered around confirmation bias.... they take their experiences and assumptions as truth and disregard all evidence to the contrary. They've decided that what they believe is normal, so it must be normal for everyone. Except, of course, those who don't believe as they do who are automatically considered abnormal (fake, swingers, of loose morality, etc). It's not different than evangelicals constantly spouting that they "speak for America" and all that nonsense.


*WHY* does intolerance of unseemly behaviour have to have its roots in some sort of trauma, or emotional scarring? Some people *ARE* able to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, *WITHOUT* having been traumatized.


This is the problem. To YOU, it's unseemly behavior. To people like me, it's much more unseemly to insist on controlling your SOs behavior down to the last detail. Controlling.... where you tell a person what they can and can't do. Short of shoving a GPS tracker up your SO's anus and having a remote alarm that let's you know when/where their body parts are being used, doing this is NO guarantee of cheating. It's blatant insecurity and trust issues.


Yes. Although the pro-never-a-problem-with-an-SO crowd tends to avoid the concept of boundaries, but yes -- everyone should have boundaries, of course. I think that's the point of the arguments, so the concept shouldn't be avoided -- it should be the main focus -- where are normalized boundaries in a monogamous relationship, by default, in reference to the human condition if nothing else is said?


Translation: Everyone should have boundaries, but not their boundaries or boundaries their SO is comfortable with. See, I've decided what normal boundaries around for EVERYONE, not just me. You should acknowledge that MY boundaries are the best boundaries because, of course, "I" thought of them.

(and you guys REALLY have no idea why we think you're control freaks?)


Well, they're not going to be random, by default, nor expected to be remotely close to random when you come to the basics! That's where the heart of the argument is!


Translation: Everyone should have BASIC boundaries, but not their basic boundaries or basic boundaries their SO is comfortable with. See, I've decided what normal basic boundaries around for EVERYONE, not just me. You should acknowledge that MY basic boundaries are the best boundaries because, of course, "I" thought of them.


But *some basic* boundaries apply to all when entering into a monogamous situation, By Default. :) Those basic, most common-sense ones.


Translation: Everyone should have *basic* common sense boundaries, but not their basic boundaries or basic boundaries their SO is comfortable with. See, I've decided what normal basic boundaries around for EVERYONE, not just me. You should acknowledge that MY basic boundaries are the best boundaries because, of course, "I" thought of them.


You like the others do not care about the respectful treatment of others, it's all about the respect you believe you should be shown, and that's not respect, it's validation.


Yup.


They want to argue as if cheating is the only possible objection anyone can have to an SO getting all chummy-chummy and 1-on-1 with an OS friend, and that any recalcitrance is therefore indicative of distrust on the part of the person who wants proper decorum in a relationship.


Fine. Give us a basic, common sense, should-apply-to-everyone, blanket reason why OS friends should not be allowed that doesn't revolve around sex occurring at some point.



For some reason ,my husband is proud of what I do for a job, not hung up on the fact that I often work closely with males...


Then you and your husband have no concept of basic boundaries and common sense. I don't care if he agrees or not, other people outside your relationship might have a problem with it and that simply won't do!

*WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THESE POOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS OR TO REFRAIN FROM GOSSIP. THEY NEED TO BE RESPECTED!!!!"

:P




But nice try at avoiding the issue of your self centered, self serving, egotistical and manipulative use of "respect".
You people do not get into relationships, you get into co dependent hostage situations.


HAHAHA.....




"Innu" is referring to the group.

It's painful to watch the pseudo-intellectuals here...


Tell me about it, since the Innu and Inuit are completely separate, distinct groups. As in, not the same.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >