guys and dolls
Aug. 6th, 2002 11:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentPurely platonic male/female relationships: the default state or polite fiction?
For quite a long time, I was pretty much convinced it was the latter. To be fair, I was using quite strict definitions; I tended to be a bit stingy about who I'd call a friend, rather than just a friend, for instance. So people I knew vaguely as friends of friends - well enough to talk to in the street, say - didn't count. My position was that you couldn't get a serious male/female friendship without there being some undercurrent of curiosity - without one or the other wondering at some stage whether it might lead to something more.
(This may, strictly speaking, be a misuse of the word 'platonic', but there you go)
Recently, I've started to re-evaluate that position. Take Marie, for instance, who was my first stop over the weekend. I met her when we were both on the Biosoc committee. We chatted a few times, then at the end of trinity term of the (counts on fingers) second year, she sent me an email suggesting we meet up over the summer. At this point, I had a pretty huge crush on her, so I jumped at the chance (metaphorically, you understand). Nothing ever happened, though, and gradually the tone of the relationship has shifted. It seems to me that we both know what the score was, and what the score currently is, all without ever actually having any sort of 'about our relationship' type of discussion. Over the weekend, for instance, we went to the Tate Britain, rented a film and went to the Comedy Store (standup night rather than improv night; still fun, but for my money not quite as good), and it wasn't until I was on the way home that it occured to me that now our relationship really is platonic. There's no lingering 'what-if' in my mind, I just consider her a very good friend that I feel happy and comfortable about spending time with; and I don't see any indication that she now (or ever) felt any differently.
So, I thought, maybe you can get to real platonic friendships by going through something non-platonic first. That makes sense, and it's really only a small modification of the original theory. On the other hand, there's Clare, who was the second stop of the weekend.
Now, I don't know Clare all that well yet. As I've mentioned before, she's a friend of Emilia's that I met when I went up to Durham in the middle of June. She helped me out with something, and we've stayed in touch since. I'd say we're well on our way to being friends, though, and it's all entirely platonic. And it's not something shallow like she's not attractive because, well, she is attractive. Maybe it's the fact that she's got a long-term boyfriend she's obviously crazy about, so it's clear that she's not interested in anyone else; maybe it's because my attentions are directed elsewhere at the moment. Maybe it's a combination, but it's not as though that's unprecedented in my history, either. It's a bit of a novelty for me, though, for things to be completely platonic.
Maybe I'm just growing up, eh?
What it all comes down to, though, is that I now understand that platonic male/female friendships are really, truly possible. Yay, me. I still wouldn't like to speculate whether they're more or less common than the other sort; as a Man, being brutally honest, my guess would be less common, but then, I'm only a sample of one.
This really has been my most self-indulgent livejournal post so far, hasn't it? Ho-hum. I'll see if I can some up with something of more general interest next time...
Usenet post of the day: Tim Minear endorses uk.media.tv.angel. Hey, made me smile.
For quite a long time, I was pretty much convinced it was the latter. To be fair, I was using quite strict definitions; I tended to be a bit stingy about who I'd call a friend, rather than just a friend, for instance. So people I knew vaguely as friends of friends - well enough to talk to in the street, say - didn't count. My position was that you couldn't get a serious male/female friendship without there being some undercurrent of curiosity - without one or the other wondering at some stage whether it might lead to something more.
(This may, strictly speaking, be a misuse of the word 'platonic', but there you go)
Recently, I've started to re-evaluate that position. Take Marie, for instance, who was my first stop over the weekend. I met her when we were both on the Biosoc committee. We chatted a few times, then at the end of trinity term of the (counts on fingers) second year, she sent me an email suggesting we meet up over the summer. At this point, I had a pretty huge crush on her, so I jumped at the chance (metaphorically, you understand). Nothing ever happened, though, and gradually the tone of the relationship has shifted. It seems to me that we both know what the score was, and what the score currently is, all without ever actually having any sort of 'about our relationship' type of discussion. Over the weekend, for instance, we went to the Tate Britain, rented a film and went to the Comedy Store (standup night rather than improv night; still fun, but for my money not quite as good), and it wasn't until I was on the way home that it occured to me that now our relationship really is platonic. There's no lingering 'what-if' in my mind, I just consider her a very good friend that I feel happy and comfortable about spending time with; and I don't see any indication that she now (or ever) felt any differently.
So, I thought, maybe you can get to real platonic friendships by going through something non-platonic first. That makes sense, and it's really only a small modification of the original theory. On the other hand, there's Clare, who was the second stop of the weekend.
Now, I don't know Clare all that well yet. As I've mentioned before, she's a friend of Emilia's that I met when I went up to Durham in the middle of June. She helped me out with something, and we've stayed in touch since. I'd say we're well on our way to being friends, though, and it's all entirely platonic. And it's not something shallow like she's not attractive because, well, she is attractive. Maybe it's the fact that she's got a long-term boyfriend she's obviously crazy about, so it's clear that she's not interested in anyone else; maybe it's because my attentions are directed elsewhere at the moment. Maybe it's a combination, but it's not as though that's unprecedented in my history, either. It's a bit of a novelty for me, though, for things to be completely platonic.
Maybe I'm just growing up, eh?
What it all comes down to, though, is that I now understand that platonic male/female friendships are really, truly possible. Yay, me. I still wouldn't like to speculate whether they're more or less common than the other sort; as a Man, being brutally honest, my guess would be less common, but then, I'm only a sample of one.
This really has been my most self-indulgent livejournal post so far, hasn't it? Ho-hum. I'll see if I can some up with something of more general interest next time...
Usenet post of the day: Tim Minear endorses uk.media.tv.angel. Hey, made me smile.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
at last an update!
Date: 2002-08-06 04:09 am (UTC)and yes, platonic m/f relationships are perfectly possible. age and wisdom, my friend.
Re: at last an update!
Date: 2002-08-06 02:43 pm (UTC)Well, yes. And if you thought this was good, I've got a complaint about the word 'love' I'd like to share with y'all. But it still feels a bit like emotional prostitution. :)
and yes, platonic m/f relationships are perfectly possible.
So it seems, although I still suspect women are better wired for them than men.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-06 04:22 am (UTC)Whenever I see musing on truly platonic relationships, I think of When Harry Met Sally. Hmmm, good film, shame about the hairstyles.
And I'd wondered why you hadn't commented on the newsgroup about the Tim-Man. Should've known you couldn't resist. :)
no subject
Date: 2002-08-06 02:46 pm (UTC)You're right. It does sound better.
I think this is your Deepest entry yet.
In the sense of revealing deep character flaws, probably...
And I'd wondered why you hadn't commented on the newsgroup about the Tim-Man.
I have! Told him that since he's leaving he should get SDK to drop in on us instead. :)
And I've seen only ever seen half of WHMS, and that was about five years ago.
...
Date: 2002-08-06 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-08-06 04:32 am (UTC)However, I'd say most straight male/female relationships are probably partially platonic, to a greater or lesser degree. (That's a concept that makes sense, but is also clearly nonsense - like "a bit pregnant", but you know what I mean.) Most importantly, however, is the fact that there's nothing to worry about if a relationship isn't entirely platonic. Or if it is. But truly platonic relationships (on *both* sides) are probably rare beasts.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-06 02:49 pm (UTC)Really? Any particular reason?
Most importantly, however, is the fact that there's nothing to worry about if a relationship isn't entirely platonic. Or if it is.
Well, most of the time, anyway. Occasionally it can lead to awkwardness if there's confusion between the two parties about which it is.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-07 04:46 am (UTC)No, not really. You just didn't strike me as the type to not believe in platonic relationships. Don't really know why.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-06 05:20 am (UTC)Hmmm.. I've just looked up the definition of Platonic and it seems to be that which *transcends* physical love. I always thought of it as being cool-love, friendly love. Damned words.
As for TM, who'd have thought it would be Chapman who made him stay? :p
no subject
Date: 2002-08-06 02:51 pm (UTC)It just feels wrong. So very, very wrong.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-07 12:49 am (UTC)Oh, and hi, BTW. I'm a blogger person normally but I thought I'd pass by and wave.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-08 03:25 pm (UTC)And here I thought livejournal had standards. Seems they'll just let anyone in. Tsk.
:-P
(Hi there)