Damon Young defines “platonic love” and insists that such a relationship cannot exist between a heterosexual man and woman.
After reading Juliet Lapidos’ “In Hollywood, Friends Always Have Benefits” last week, Damon Young felt compelled to share a revised “Platonic Schmetonic” — the first chapter his book, Your Degrees Won’t Keep You Warm at Night: The Very Smart Brothas Guide to Dating, Mating, and Fighting Crime
Enjoy, and try not to think about the fact that since Lapidos’ article is a response to the new romantic comedy, Friends With Benefits, this piece would actually be a preemptive response to a response.
♦◊♦
We’ve heard the story before.
Boy and Girl are both attending annual Delta Sigma Theta kickball game/cancer fundraiser. Boy approaches Girl, and Girl is charmed by Boy’s proper use of eclecticism and pragmatic in a sentence. Boy and Girl exchange numbers, and after a month or so of weekly coffeehouse outings and a trip to a Pottery Barn outlet, they become…friends. Not lovers, not even the awkward friends with benefits, but best friends forever, serving as each other’s de facto permanent back-up weekend companion, but never, ever crossing that line.
Sure, they’ve both seen Chasing Amy[1], and they’re both aware that most people don’t think that they—two like-aged, attractive, available, and un-asexual people—can stay strictly platonic friends if they stay close to each other. But they’re different and they prove their differentness by staying true friends, forever.
♦◊♦
Everyone has heard this story before. Everyone has also heard stories about the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and light beer that doesn’t taste like cat urine, and just like each of these whimsical and completely fabricated ideas, platonic friendships between men and women do not and cannot exist.
Before I continue, I want to make clear that I do believe men and women can be close friends. It’s not impossible or even improbable. In fact, I have several female friends; women I speak to and see on a regular basis. The main point I want to convey is that there are several reasons why the term platonic just doesn’t fit.
A : relating to or based on platonic love; also : experiencing or professing platonic love
B : of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex
If we’re to believe the Merriam-Webster definition of platonic—and, since the last person who disputed Merriam and Webster got thrown from a helicopter into the Grand Canyon, we better believe Merriam and Webster—like-aged men and women just don’t meet each other in situations where physical desire is completely transcended. We don’t actively seek friends of the opposite sex, especially not ones who are close to our age. Millions[2] of years of life on this planet have shown us we’re always on the prowl for potential mating partners. Someone (usually the male) has to make the first move, and 99% of the time, when we do a cold approach on a woman we don’t know, friendship is about the last thing on our minds; approximately 796 spots below other common initial thoughts such as “I wonder if she can cook,” “Can she teach our kids how to use Google Plus,” and “Is that a thong?”
If we’re to believe the Merriam-Webster definition of platonic, like-aged men and women just don’t meet each other in situations where physical desire is completely transcended.
|
A friendship may happen, but it definitely wasn’t the initial plan. Since that’s the case, it would be disingenuous to call any future relationship platonic. I mean, if you’re headed for the McDonald’s drive-thru and you accidently smash your finger in your driver-side door, stopping at the emergency room doesn’t make you any less hungry, does it? (Don’t answer that question.)
♦◊♦
With sets of friends where one of them does admit to some romantic attraction but attempts to suppress it for the sake of the friendship or some other limp-dicked bullshit, their relationship, platonically at least, is doomed. Even an inkling of suppressed physical desire has its way of eventually showing itself and both parties are usually aware of its presence, despite how they attempt to deny its existence.
It comes out in the subtle way certain requests made from a woman to her “platonic” male friend might be accompanied with her voice going up an octave. It also comes out when that same male friend jumps at the opportunity to help her move her 700 pound refrigerator Saturday morning, even though if one of his male friends made that same request, he’d respond with some variant of “I’m too damn hungover from last night,” “I’m so hungover that I cant remember how I hurt my back last night,” or “I would, but I’m so hungover that I cant find my sweats.”
Plus, even if you claim to be in the 0.1% of people where there’s absolutely no romantic feeling harbored by either side in your platonic relationship, you have to figure in “The Champ’s Law of Averages and Percentages,” which states:
If you willingly spend more than 20% of your free time with someone of the opposite sex, there’s at least a 50% chance that at least one of you will develop sexual feelings, or already has developed them but keeps quiet out of fear that they would be unrequited.
X (time percentage)* 2.5 = Y (chance percentage)
According to this equation, if you spend anywhere over 40% of your free time with a platonic friend, there’s anywhere from a 100 to 250% chance that someone wants to bed somebody.
♦◊♦
“Well, what if a guy just isn’t attracted to a girl at all? Can’t they be friends then? I mean, I’m attractive and all, but I’m sure every guy out there doesn’t want to get me into bed.”
This question shows that the questioner fails to comprehend one of the first general rules you need to know about men: Generally speaking, we are very, very, very shallow. This doesn’t make us bad people, but let’s just say we’d all be very wise never to underestimate the sheer gluttonous monstrosity of our shallowness. This is important to know because it helps you understand the fact that very, very, very few unattached men are going to willingly spend a good amount of their free time with a like-aged woman that they’re not attracted to in any way.[3]
You can’t blame this egregious shallowness on us, though. As I implied earlier, our survival as a species is partially predicated on the complex zygomorphic labyrinth men have to process when meeting a new woman. Basically, we’ll become extinct if we don’t actively attempt to maximize the time we spend around women we wouldn’t mind sleeping with, and if you’re looking for someone to be mad at about this, blame God.
Sorry ladies, but every male “friend” you have would bed you if the time and opportunity was right. I’m not saying they want to, but, if they’ve been single at any point during their relationship with you, you best believe they’ve at least thought about and considered it. Since that consideration doesn’t exactly mesh with transcending physical desire, they’re not really platonic.
Well, just how we (men) have to find something remotely attractive about a woman to willingly spend free time with her, women don’t want to be bothered with straight men who find them (not women in general, just her in particular) completely repulsive.
|
Also, women are partially responsible for this phenomenon as well. Why? Well, just how we (men) have to find something remotely attractive about a woman to willingly spend free time with her, women don’t want to be bothered with straight men who find them (not women in general, just her in particular) completely repulsive. All that nonsense women talk about wanting to find a straight male friend who harbors absolutely no physical interest or attraction for them is just that…nonsense. The dozens of years most women have spent learning how to consciously and subconsciously use their femininity to converse with and coerce the opposite sex leaves many of them ill-equipped to be close with a guy who literally considers her to be like a sister…or brother. I’d show another one of my equations here, but I think we all need a bit more time to digest the first one.
♦◊♦
“How about if we’re both in committed relationships, completely faithful to our significant others, and just enjoying each others friendship? That can’t work? ”
No. But, not so much in the sense that “it can’t work” as much as “it will never, ever happen.” Since we’ve already established that single men usually don’t attempt to befriend women for whom they harbor absolutely no attraction, the only way two people in separate romantic relationships can become truly platonic friends would be if they happened to first meet each other after they both were already in the relationship; an impossibility due to the fact that no man or woman I know is going to be okay with their significant other making new close friends of the opposite sex. I don’t care how open-minded or trustworthy they might be; it’s just one of those things you have to accept is never going to happen, like R. Kelly finally going to prison. We just haven’t evolved to that point as a species yet. Maybe in 2511, but not now.
You know, I’ve considered that maybe my platonic friend viewpoint is a bit jaded. This is most likely due to the fact that the one time I tried the very close strictly platonic friend thing, hurt feelings, nasty emails, and some very unplatonic things involving a staircase and a bottle of Moet all eventually occurred within a four year span. Thing is, all that experience did for me is reinforce what millions of years of evolution have taught us; men are simple, women are nuts, and neither of us are equipped for a close and truly platonic friendship. The day I’m shown proof of it occurring and succeeding will most likely be the same day I’ll show you the Loch Ness Monster footprints in my back yard.
[1] Makes the cut with Say Anything, When Harry Met Sally, and The Best Man on the list of ‘The four most awkward movies to watch while in college and sitting on the couch next to your unrequited crush” – The Champ.
[2] If you’re a Young Earth creationist—a person who staunchly believes that the Earth is only 5,000 years old—just substitute “hundreds” for “millions.” –T.C.
[3] Why? Well, there are myriad reasons for this, but my favorite is the fact that men are acutely aware of one of the tenets of “Bandwagon Attraction.” Basically, we know that our attractiveness score can potentially rise if we’re seen out with an attractive woman (even if we’re not romantically involved with her) because other women will figure that there must be something special about us to warrant her company. –T.C.
♦◊♦
—Photo Cali4beach/Flickr
Recommended Resources…
[…]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…
Agree wholeheartedly with the Champ’s take on things here. Men, heterosexual men at least, do not actively seek out female friends unless there is some sexual element. Now, that desire can and is often times suppressed in favour of some other goal, especially by more mature men (such as using her as a connection, possible working arrangement etc) but at the end of the day Men like Women and vice versa and all the Champ was doing was pointing out that fact. On another note I can’t even understand the hate the article is getting from some of these very… Read more »
There’s another possibility here that I’m not sure anyone has mentioned. A man may want to have sex with a female friend or imagine it, but that may not be permanent. I would say I’ve imagined having sex with most of my female friends at one point, but in most cases the thought just flashed through my mind and was gone over the course of a few seconds. It wasn’t attraction so much as, “I wonder what it would be like…hmm…never mind.” Just because you’ve thought about it doesn’t mean you deeply want to or would do it at any… Read more »
P.S. What I think is fair to say is that when a woman regularly hangs out with a bunch of her hetero guy friends, it is virtually certain at least one of them wants to sleep with her. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. It can be kind of sweet, actually.
Yes, many of us women feel the same way about our male friends. Doesn’t mean it’s not real friendship. (I pretty much feel this way about most of my friends of both sexes, so being bisexual would prevent me from having real friends, if you had some kind of ridiculously stringent definition of “real friend”.)
I love this article.
It’s funny as hell (especially the light beer tasting like cat urine comment).
I also happen to agree… I think we all have very different definitions of what a friend is, and that’s where the opposition lies. I think people are really defensive of their platonic “relationships” because deep down they know that some (or all) of the points you make apply directly to their “friendships”.
I don’t think men and women can be friends, I also have a very specific meaning of friendship.
Keep the articles comin’!
Yeah, that light beer = cat urine joke, that was REALLY original and I’ve NEVER heard it before, presumably because I don’t read.
What utter, utter nonsense. Bro-style cockitude of the highest order. From describing ignoring romantic feelings as “limp-dicked” to the age-old characterisation of “men are simple, women are nuts”, there is nothing here that isn’t cribbed from the laziest stereotypes of men and women, backed up with incredibly over-simplified evolutionary psychology.
The fact that you describe having “several female friends” as though it were some kind of achievement speaks volumes.
I really hope this is a parody or something and I missed the joke.
Wow, I was starting to really feel good about this site and the things I’ve read on it. And then I read this.
K bye.
I agree with Roger. While I appreciated the humor in the piece (please god, tell me that was supposed to be funny), because I disagree with your definition of platonic, I can’t agree with your arguments either (not to mention the fact that I do think you sell a lot of men short). As humans are sexual beings, I believe there are sexual feelings, either conscious or subconscious, in the interaction between most people, regardless of gender. This is where we rise above animals and become humans, willing and capable to act rationally and in a socially appropriate way with… Read more »
“There’s a richness to the difference of experience people bring to the table”
Oh, I agree 100%. I have a few women in my life who I consider to be true friends; women who I share jokes, experiences, opinions, and alcohol with. Again, though, I just think that platonic is the wrong word to use to describe these relationships.
And yea, this chapter/article wasn’t meant to be a concrete proclamation from the mind of an omniscient man. It’s a light-hearted opinion piece where I state my thesis and provide some anecdotal and (somewhat) funny evidence.
You did a shitty job. Do you honestly think this hasn’t been said before, a million times, each less funny than the ones that preceded it? I wish I could be angry about this, but it’s just more of the same — everything I’ve come to expect of men, AGAINST MY WILL, on the very site where I had such high hopes there would be none. Don’t be disingenuous. “Comedy, it’s comedy!” It’s bullshit. “Either you get it or you don’t!” Get what, that this wink-wink OH I’M JUST KIDDING LOL, IT’S JUST MY OPINION LOL, IT’S FUNNY LOL crap… Read more »
Damon, I am an avid VSB.com reader so I can understand your humor. A lot of people apparently didn’t get that your writing is always a little cynical to get the point across. I found this article very entertaining. I do have meaningful relationships with my male friends. One in particular, I liked his best friend so I think he understands that there will never be an “us”. Your article rings true to me in one area of my life where I do have a guy friend who always makes crude jokes around me. Stuff like, “let me see your… Read more »
Damon, you are one funny dude. You have pushed an argument to an extreme to make a very valid point. There is, in almost every male-female relationship – no matter how you define it – some sexual tension. It’s there whether you name it or not. But, come on, man, to call all guys shallow because all we think about is sex? That pushes the argument to the ridiculous. And let me ask you this: Can’t a guy who thinks about bedding a female friend, also capable of thinking other thoughts and be capable of sharing some of the depth… Read more »
“Can’t a guy who thinks about bedding a female friend, also capable of thinking other thoughts and be capable of sharing some of the depth of his personhood with her?”
In the beginning of the chapter, I state that men and women can be very close friends. I just hate when the word platonic is used to describe those friendships, because it very rarely fits. I guess this is more of a semantics argument than anything else.
Btw, the shallow part was meant more as a tongue-in-cheek dig at manhood than anything else.
I get it Damon. You’re taking some unearned heat for a piece that was taken out of context. But thanks for jumping into the fray here at the GMP. You obviously struck some nerves.
A narrow, cynical, and childish viewpoint. Yes, I have female friends who I’ve thought about sleeping with, but I also have several who I have never had any romantic or sexual interest in. Unless I don’t exist, as your article would seem to claim. Also, since every guy is just out there for sex 24/7, should we expand your point a bit and say that gay men can never have platonic relationships with men, too? I think what you mean is that *you* can never have a platonic friendship with a woman, and that says something about you, not about… Read more »
“Yes, I have female friends who I’ve thought about sleeping with, but I also have several who I have never had any romantic or sexual interest in. Unless I don’t exist, as your article would seem to claim”
I’m (pretty) sure you exist. Don’t fret too much about that. Also, I don’t know whether to be more impressed by your several platonic female friends or the fact that you seem to have dozens of female friends (platonic and non-platonic).
Cool, evade any actual criticism or questions about your article. You, sir, are obviously a savvy internet veteran.
I only “evade” comments that begin with insults. But, as far as your criticism goes, as long as you keep putting words in my mouth (“every guy is just out there for sex 24/7”), I can’t take it completely seriously
I don’t even know where to start. There is almost nothing in this article that I agree with and not a single paragraph that does not contain something which infuriates me, from the implication that “real men” are only interested in sex (i.e. “limp-dicked bullshit”), to the direct claims of all men being simple and shallow and the systematic blindness of the ability of one person (seemingly, of either gender) to be attracted to another in any way other than physically. On top of all of your premises being myopic and cynical, the M-W-based definition you set for yourself days… Read more »
“There is almost nothing in this article that I agree with and not a single paragraph that does not contain something which infuriates me”
Not even the part about light beer tasting like cat urine? I thought that was pretty clever.
I have to agree with this article more or less. When I was in my 20’s, I had a ton of male friends. Once I hit my late 30’s, the number of male aquaintences who were willing to have even a 5 minute conversation with me absolutely plummeted. At 45, I’m pretty much invisible to men. Not completely (yet) — older guys occasionally chat me up at Starbucks or whatever — but I can see the day rapidly approaching where I could be run over by a bus in a crowded parking lot and 95% of the guys walking by… Read more »
“When I was in my 20′s, I had a ton of male friends. Once I hit my late 30′s, the number of male aquaintences who were willing to have even a 5 minute conversation with me absolutely plummeted. At 45, I’m pretty much invisible to men” You could make the argument, though, that this is more due to circumstance brought on by age than age itself. I’m assuming that many of the male ‘friends” you had in your 20’s were high school/college/”party” buddies. It seems like life makes it so that our interactions with like-aged members of the opposite sex… Read more »
You have a point about the number of opportunities to meet new members of the opposite sex, but I’m thinking more about of the nature of my interactions with men who I know in the workplace, in social settings etc. In my cynical moments, it occurs to me that all the guys who used to seem to enjoy spending time with me, making small talk, discussing work and our personal lives, etc., really just enjoyed talking to me because I was a young, somewhat pretty female. Once that’s gone — poof, there goes their interest completely, even though (I think)… Read more »
Men aren’t even friends with other men in their old age. See all the articles here on about it. Not personally to you.
I have female friends I’ve had since childhood. It’s got nothing to do with them being young and pretty. It’s about having common interests, even if it’s just common experiences and backgrounds. Your friendships were evidently superficial acquaintances, not true friendships.
Why would I need to spend 20% of my time with someone just to call them a friend?
I’m thinking of a woman I am friends with…I do not find her repulsive, but I am not attracted to her. And the only way I think the two of us would “bed each other” would be the “marooned on a desert island” kind of thing.
I appreciate the humor in this piece, though.
20% is an arbitrary number. The point is that I’d have trouble considering someone to be a close “friend” if I haven’t seen them since the series debut of “Boomtown.”
One question: How did you meet this woman?
We shared an office together with about 17 other adjuncts.
“We shared an office together with about 17 other adjuncts.”
I asked because there’s a part of the chapter I edited out for this post, and it deals with places where a truly platonic relationship can cultivate. “Work” was one of them.
okay – so the thoughts really are not that platonic cannot exist, simply that they are rare?
In the chapter I explain that there are four places where a platonic relationship can form — school, work, online, and your mate’s address book (basically, befriending a woman who’s already friends with your girlfriend/wife) — because the social dynamics present are different there than they are in “real” life
Don’t these things (i.e., school, work, online, socialising with your mate) *constitute* most of “real” life, for a lot of people? When you take account of the fact that I’ve made opposite-sex platonic friends through sports and hobbies too, it would appear that my “real” life consists almost entirely of eating, sleeping, and chores.