Good goddess of creation! Are you back on that "Do women think about sex, too?" thing? Did Susan and I not beat that out of you?
For once and for all:
YES, WE DO! And lots. Probably not quite as much as your average, horomonal teenage boy, but still! The conversations we've had that would have (or did) make your ears burn..... well, let's just say they are too numerous to count. And far too X-rated for publication. Oh, wait. I guess they're in the archives.
I think, to a degree, women have been taught that they should be more cautious and choosy about sexual encounters. And if you think about it, who is the one person in a heterosexual liasion that has to bear the consequences if "an accident" occurs? I think it would totally suck to be a guy and know that if a pregnancy occured from a casual encounter, you might never know about it. Women don't ever have that problem. Granted, not everyone considers this. I have a friend who was having a casual relationship with a friend and ended it because she realized that she had no intention of being tied to this person if contraception failed.
Anyway, what makes it hard? I don't know that it is hard unless someone brings it up. I think men and women make great friends unless or until someone brings up attraction. Then things get awkward. And if one person is attracted and the other not, it makes things really awkward. So, in general, it's probably hard to be friends with someone that you're attracted to -- but it can happen if something makes the attracted realize that the attractive is unavailable, as in your scenario with an attached female friend. Or long-distance. That works, too.
You're a boy. I'm a girl. We're friends. You can't deny that we initially got to know each other based on mutual attraction. In the long run, I guess I'm glad that worked out. I've had you as a friend longer than I've dated anyone, and I value that.
12 October 2004
My God, do I have my work cut out for me. No more two week vacations for you, missy. Let's just assume you answered my topic and move on with what you've laid out, because I can never get enough of this topic, it being near and dear to my heart. I can't possibly come up with as technical an explanation as you did, but here's my take on it...
He said: I'm only going to admit to this once. For men, sex is the number one biggest problem. The constant desires become too much to avoid. You're always wondering what it would be like to be with this person or that person... and then when you come across a woman that you can have fun with, it makes it that much worse. If most men had any homosexual tendencies, we'd probably have no need for women. I blame women, personally, for being too damned cute and too much to resist, you sexy, sexy beasts.
In the case of a female friend I'm attracted to, what normally settles the issue for me them having a good boyfriend or a good husband. Once I can write off any sexual possibility and know they're taken care of, it's a lot easier to move on to just being friends. Sad, I know, but true. It took me a VERY long time to deal with this issue when I was growing up.
Men and women are bred to enjoy different things. Boys are supposed to like sports and video games; girls are supposed to like dolls and makeup and playing house. I, like most guys, think a girl that is into sports is cool, mostly because they typically aren't. Just like girls like a guy with a sense of style and fashion.
In some cases, it is easier for men and women to be friends if they are part of a group that includes members of both genders. You know, the sort of people that always go out as a group together. It's those intense one-on-one type deals that normally get people messing around. When you're in a group, those type situations don't present themselves as often. Then again, I dunno--I was at a football game this weekend and sat behind four married couples... they seemed very friendly toward each other and I couldn't help but wonder if, between all of them, they had entertained thoughts of being with the other people in the group.
Bottom line, I say it's natural attraction between us that makes it hard for men and women to simply be friends. Also, it is probably for the best that society makes us different in so many ways.
What I am interested in is what makes these relationships difficult for women?
He said: I'm only going to admit to this once. For men, sex is the number one biggest problem. The constant desires become too much to avoid. You're always wondering what it would be like to be with this person or that person... and then when you come across a woman that you can have fun with, it makes it that much worse. If most men had any homosexual tendencies, we'd probably have no need for women. I blame women, personally, for being too damned cute and too much to resist, you sexy, sexy beasts.
In the case of a female friend I'm attracted to, what normally settles the issue for me them having a good boyfriend or a good husband. Once I can write off any sexual possibility and know they're taken care of, it's a lot easier to move on to just being friends. Sad, I know, but true. It took me a VERY long time to deal with this issue when I was growing up.
Men and women are bred to enjoy different things. Boys are supposed to like sports and video games; girls are supposed to like dolls and makeup and playing house. I, like most guys, think a girl that is into sports is cool, mostly because they typically aren't. Just like girls like a guy with a sense of style and fashion.
In some cases, it is easier for men and women to be friends if they are part of a group that includes members of both genders. You know, the sort of people that always go out as a group together. It's those intense one-on-one type deals that normally get people messing around. When you're in a group, those type situations don't present themselves as often. Then again, I dunno--I was at a football game this weekend and sat behind four married couples... they seemed very friendly toward each other and I couldn't help but wonder if, between all of them, they had entertained thoughts of being with the other people in the group.
Bottom line, I say it's natural attraction between us that makes it hard for men and women to simply be friends. Also, it is probably for the best that society makes us different in so many ways.
What I am interested in is what makes these relationships difficult for women?
Some clarity on last night's rant:
Going back to the first post of the day, I said something about the difference between seeing one's self relationally (the web of relationships that creates identity) and seeing one's self individually.
According to Carol Gilligan in A Different Voice, boys and girls develop identity differently. The predominent psychological model is based on boys' development, making girls look, from a psychological viewpoint, abnormal. Her contention is that a dual model of development needs to be considered, as both gender move through both patterns, but in a different order and at different times (Gail Sheehey's Passages says the same thing about adult development).
THE THEORY: Boys first develop an individual sense of self in relation to an objective standard of justice (i.e. playing games by the rules, debating the rules according to one's own sense of justice. Girls first develop a relational sense of self, judging the rules by how they affect people, rather than by an objective standard. The boy-model is seen as the more "mature" model by most psychological studies.
THE PROBLEM: Both senses are necessary. As I said yesterday, one cannot be part of a group if one is not an individual. But one cannot be an individual without a group from which one can distinguish oneself. In this developmental model, men eventually have some discomfort with relational issues and women with individual issues.
CONCLUSION: This does not mean that problems are inevitable or insurmountable. What it means is that developmental theory must recognize both senses of self as important. As adults, to be psychologically healthy, I think we need to find ourselves and find ourselves in relation to other people in our lives. We have to relate to others and we have to relate to ourselves.
Would my life be more simple if I started reading chic lit instead of psychology and sociology?
Going back to the first post of the day, I said something about the difference between seeing one's self relationally (the web of relationships that creates identity) and seeing one's self individually.
According to Carol Gilligan in A Different Voice, boys and girls develop identity differently. The predominent psychological model is based on boys' development, making girls look, from a psychological viewpoint, abnormal. Her contention is that a dual model of development needs to be considered, as both gender move through both patterns, but in a different order and at different times (Gail Sheehey's Passages says the same thing about adult development).
THE THEORY: Boys first develop an individual sense of self in relation to an objective standard of justice (i.e. playing games by the rules, debating the rules according to one's own sense of justice. Girls first develop a relational sense of self, judging the rules by how they affect people, rather than by an objective standard. The boy-model is seen as the more "mature" model by most psychological studies.
THE PROBLEM: Both senses are necessary. As I said yesterday, one cannot be part of a group if one is not an individual. But one cannot be an individual without a group from which one can distinguish oneself. In this developmental model, men eventually have some discomfort with relational issues and women with individual issues.
CONCLUSION: This does not mean that problems are inevitable or insurmountable. What it means is that developmental theory must recognize both senses of self as important. As adults, to be psychologically healthy, I think we need to find ourselves and find ourselves in relation to other people in our lives. We have to relate to others and we have to relate to ourselves.
Would my life be more simple if I started reading chic lit instead of psychology and sociology?
11 October 2004
Okay, two posts in one day? Maybe it will make up for almost two full non-blogging weeks. Or not.
Anyway: New Topic. Not that I think I answered Mark's, and not that I shouldn't give him time, but this is one for the ages and we could debate it forever. Literally.
Are men and women different? How? Why? What can we do to solve the cosmic joke of heterosexuality?
Or: Can we really ever live together?
(and, on a side note: Was Harry right? Or was Sally?)
I think I'm going to begin with the last one: they were both wrong. Obviously men and women can be friends. But does sex always intrude? I don't think it necessarily intrudes. I think it exists. I think it is natural to wonder sometimes. I don't think it needs to be an issue -- not unless someone makes it an issue.
Secondly, I haven't a clue what makes men and women different. I'm on the fence about the whole nature versus nurture thing. In some ways, I am my mother. Or turning into her, at least. But there are some fundamental thought patterns that we do not share, and I attribute these to nature.
What is it, though, that gets between us? Or, as some British novelist named Alain (if I could remember his last name, I could find the book again) asked, why is it that we feel the need to correct our nearest and dearest for the smallest infractions -- ones that we let a good friend get off with? Why are we harder on lovers than friends? Is it that lovers reflect on us? I would think friends do, too, but maybe we do not see that we have any control with a friend. Argh. Would that I were simply a lesbian. Okay, I know that that solves NOTHING. It creates a new set of problems. But hey, Susan, if you're reading: still want to be my date to the reunion next year (if I go)?
I guess I'm not looking for a biological or psychological answer. I guess there are just times that it seems like the Supreme Goddesses that created life as we know it (and not the TV show) are laughing their fool heads off. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Okay. Reality intrudes. I have a staff meeting in the morning.
Anyway: New Topic. Not that I think I answered Mark's, and not that I shouldn't give him time, but this is one for the ages and we could debate it forever. Literally.
Are men and women different? How? Why? What can we do to solve the cosmic joke of heterosexuality?
Or: Can we really ever live together?
(and, on a side note: Was Harry right? Or was Sally?)
I think I'm going to begin with the last one: they were both wrong. Obviously men and women can be friends. But does sex always intrude? I don't think it necessarily intrudes. I think it exists. I think it is natural to wonder sometimes. I don't think it needs to be an issue -- not unless someone makes it an issue.
Secondly, I haven't a clue what makes men and women different. I'm on the fence about the whole nature versus nurture thing. In some ways, I am my mother. Or turning into her, at least. But there are some fundamental thought patterns that we do not share, and I attribute these to nature.
What is it, though, that gets between us? Or, as some British novelist named Alain (if I could remember his last name, I could find the book again) asked, why is it that we feel the need to correct our nearest and dearest for the smallest infractions -- ones that we let a good friend get off with? Why are we harder on lovers than friends? Is it that lovers reflect on us? I would think friends do, too, but maybe we do not see that we have any control with a friend. Argh. Would that I were simply a lesbian. Okay, I know that that solves NOTHING. It creates a new set of problems. But hey, Susan, if you're reading: still want to be my date to the reunion next year (if I go)?
I guess I'm not looking for a biological or psychological answer. I guess there are just times that it seems like the Supreme Goddesses that created life as we know it (and not the TV show) are laughing their fool heads off. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Okay. Reality intrudes. I have a staff meeting in the morning.
It's been way too long to be AWOL, hasn't it?
She said: (personal update after comments)
I think that self-knowledge has to be a goal, but more of a Zen-like goal than an American goal. One can come to be in touch with herself, but not to KNOW herself completely. Why? Because we are not fully formed, fully realized beings. We are in a constant state of flux, ever changing in response to our environments and choices. Like the theory that posits that matter may cease to exist at absolute zero, where it is too cold for molecular movement, when we cease to change, we cease to be. I think on a more metaphysical note this could be true, too. We are relative beings. Our webs of relationships are webs of relativity. To you, I am a writer of a blog. To Mark, I am a friend. To my mother, I am a daughter. And so on and so forth. Part of each of us is defined by who we are in relation to others. This is a combination theory derived from Chinese Confucianism and women's psychology. But I like it.
I think many of our problems, personal and political, would be more easily solved if we remembered that we are part of a larger whole. The United States is part of the world: physically, socially, economically, politically. I am a part of this country, and bear some responsibility for its actions. I am part of my family, my place of work, my friendships, my state and city. And yet, I do believe that there is a me that is a separate entity. For how can we be part of something if we are not also separate from it? And how can we be separate if we are not part? It is the tension between the two that defines us. (I'm having a Rush moment:
"In the silence between whisper and shout/The space between wonder and doubt ....There is a fine line between love and illusion ---A fine place to penetrate" Between Sun and Moon, off the Counterparts album).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Personal update: I've been traveling for work and going nuts attempting to convince freshman college students that learning grammar is worthwhile. Also, we've finally hired someone to fill a position that has been effectively vacant (i.e. I've been doing most of the work associated with it) since December. Argh. Transitions are good, but difficult. I love autumn. Confusion, chaos, and color before death.
She said: (personal update after comments)
I think that self-knowledge has to be a goal, but more of a Zen-like goal than an American goal. One can come to be in touch with herself, but not to KNOW herself completely. Why? Because we are not fully formed, fully realized beings. We are in a constant state of flux, ever changing in response to our environments and choices. Like the theory that posits that matter may cease to exist at absolute zero, where it is too cold for molecular movement, when we cease to change, we cease to be. I think on a more metaphysical note this could be true, too. We are relative beings. Our webs of relationships are webs of relativity. To you, I am a writer of a blog. To Mark, I am a friend. To my mother, I am a daughter. And so on and so forth. Part of each of us is defined by who we are in relation to others. This is a combination theory derived from Chinese Confucianism and women's psychology. But I like it.
I think many of our problems, personal and political, would be more easily solved if we remembered that we are part of a larger whole. The United States is part of the world: physically, socially, economically, politically. I am a part of this country, and bear some responsibility for its actions. I am part of my family, my place of work, my friendships, my state and city. And yet, I do believe that there is a me that is a separate entity. For how can we be part of something if we are not also separate from it? And how can we be separate if we are not part? It is the tension between the two that defines us. (I'm having a Rush moment:
"In the silence between whisper and shout/The space between wonder and doubt ....There is a fine line between love and illusion ---A fine place to penetrate" Between Sun and Moon, off the Counterparts album).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Personal update: I've been traveling for work and going nuts attempting to convince freshman college students that learning grammar is worthwhile. Also, we've finally hired someone to fill a position that has been effectively vacant (i.e. I've been doing most of the work associated with it) since December. Argh. Transitions are good, but difficult. I love autumn. Confusion, chaos, and color before death.