|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Originally posted by cwmac: I don't mean to be stereotypical but I do think women in general are much more naive about the true mind set and motivations of male "friends".
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Checking in with MB for just a minute: on a short of sabbatical due to family reasons:
I think PEOPLE in general are naive about the risks of dangerous unseen pot-holes ... when venturing forth with an opposite sex, close emotional friendship .... not just women.
We are all innocent, until we are educated. Once educated, we cannot claim that same innocence if we walk a similar pot-holed path twice or thrice.
I once was naive about these types of friendships. I am now educated and aware of dangers I never saw before.
Gender is less relevant than experience.
Pep <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508 |
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Pepperband: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Originally posted by cwmac: I don't mean to be stereotypical but I do think women in general are much more naive about the true mind set and motivations of male "friends".
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Checking in with MB for just a minute: on a short of sabbatical due to family reasons:
I think PEOPLE in general are naive about the risks of dangerous unseen pot-holes ... when venturing forth with an opposite sex, close emotional friendship .... not just women.
We are all innocent, until we are educated. Once educated, we cannot claim that same innocence if we walk a similar pot-holed path twice or thrice.
I once was naive about these types of friendships. I am now educated and aware of dangers I never saw before.
Gender is less relevant than experience.
Pep <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree. Also this is a relatively recent phenomena. I can't think of a time in human history where women and men had the social opportunity to be simply friends, so we are breaking new ground, and developing "rules" even as we speak. That means there is going to be a lot of confusion, and misteps as this because part of our soical system.....just another manifestation of the consequences of giving women shoes, letting them out of the kitchen, and more reproductive control. <small>[ November 01, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Pepperband:
I think PEOPLE in general are naive about the risks of dangerous unseen pot-holes ... when venturing forth with an opposite sex, close emotional friendship .... not just women.
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with this. I don't think that naivety is limited to a specific gender. I don't think anyone has made that assertion, though. I think that women can be naive about certain things when it comes to males [the issue at hand was platonic relationships specifically] and I think that men are woefully naive in certain areas when it comes to women.
Saying that women can be naive in "platonic" relationships does not preclude the fact that men can also very naive. If I say that dogs have 4 legs, that doesn't mean that cats don't, just that I happen to be talking about dogs at the moment. And like you said, naivety [or lack thereof] is always contingent past experience.
sufbd wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">.....just another manifestation of the consequences of giving women shoes, letting them out of the kitchen, and more reproductive control.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">wow, you yankee men let your women wear shoes? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <small>[ November 01, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 267
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 267 |
I would like to voice my enthusiastic aggreement with both sufdb and Pepper.
sufdb, you are absolutely correct. I should not have let a comment/question about my mood effect my posts. I was wrong in that respect. I, too, think too many people try to read "tone" into these posts, and it is my impression that they often get it wrong. For some reason I come off as being "grouchy", when I feel like I'm calmly asking a question. I DO think, though, that some mistake disagreement with anger.
Pepper,
Thanks for saying, quite succinctly, what I was trying to say. I do not feel women are any more naive about opposite sex friendships than men; I also feel there are just as many manipulative women out there as men, when it comes to relationships. This view is a result of my being the "pursued" participant in an A. My original post was a reaction to what I saw as an "exclusionary" question. It would have been better phrased, IMO, to ask whether men and women are naive about opposite sex relationships/friendships.
Oscar <small>[ November 01, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: OtG ]</small>
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,906
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,906 |
fast-dad..
you said... But if one of your close male friends suddenly was out of a relationship for whatever reason divorce, death etc I can assure he would have a tougher time not trying to move things past just being friends.
See I don't agree with that... infact one of my friends just broke up with girlfriend of 3 years... our closeness is based on a deep social/shared experience... trips together, vacations, visits to my house when I lived away etc within a social group...
lots of fun history...as well life..funerals of parents other close friends...etc..
his breaking up...does not equal that the wiring in his brain turns any attention or focus on me...
I truly believe that he views me as about as unavailable as they come.. married 12 years.. he was in the wedding. good friends with husband...
am I spending any time with him deeply discussing his break up...blah blah blah....nope. BUT we are close enough that he could and might ask my opinion about things...and I would offer them..even without divulging personal emotional stuff... ..if we went out with a group could he and I end up spending some time one on one discussing it....yep probably...
would my husband be threatened by the thought of me and him talking... nope
would my friend waste his own energy even imagining that he and I might hook up... nope...
do I sound naive...perhaps...BUT I also know him well... and he knows me well..
and part of knowing me well is knowing how I love and respect my marriage... and our friendship even inspite of his wired sexual brain...can avoid that route totally and continue to be my friend... as I am his...
See what I don't agree with is that men and women can't ever be friends...because of synapses ... OR that there is always some underlying motive of a males friendship....
I guess because if I accept that then I begin too seriously doubt why my male friends are my friends...
dang all this time I thought they liked me for my efferfescent personality...and here that's not so.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> which if true...really would bother me...and be somewhat crushing....
I appreciate everyones thoughts and support.. needed it bad...
And my other question is...if men and women do think differenty...process things differently... as we all agree..
instead of the perverbial (is this really perverbial...perphaps...perverted ) saying goes...
based on male and female thinking patterns... should not the saying REALLY go...
"Is that a larg size snickers bar in your pocket? Or are you just glad to see me?" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
(truth is women don't think about bananas...)
ARK
|
|
|
0 members (),
555
guests, and
54
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,625
Posts2,323,524
Members72,035
|
Most Online6,102 Jul 3rd, 2025
|
|
|
|