Are women naiive about "friends" ? - Marriage Builders® Forums

Marriage Builders

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". A woman can truely believe that she is "just friends" with this man but the reality is that she has no idea how he percieves the relationship.

Men...how many times have you pretended to be "just friends" with a woman so that you could spend time with her and hopefully persuade her to become more? Think back to high school and college; it happened all the time. Of course if the relationship never developed further eventually it ended. Of course the women were always amazed and confused at this.

Husbands...how many times have you expressed a concern to your wife about a male "friends" intentions? They look at you like you are the original "green" monster. The reality is that you are a guy and you know how guys think. The same is true with Fathers. Girls should listen to their fathers because they are guys and they were a hormone inflicted teen and they know what their thinking.

Some people would say that two people who don't find each other attractive could become friends. I'd argue that in the beginning that might be true but as the friendship and intimacy grow. The sexual chemistry will grow also. How many times have we seen postings on this board that say my spouse is having an A with someone who is less attractive than me?

Just a few thoughts......

cwmac

I have to admit that I was very naive most of my life about my male "friends." Since I didn't think of them in a sexual way, I couldn't fathom that they thought of me in another way entirely. I think women tend to be driven more by relationships and men more by sex so sometimes we might not understand each other.

The problem is the information age we are in.

In the past intuitive male players knew women wanted to be friends first then see what happened.

Now any guy can pickup a Cosmo or any one of the dozen or so women magazines and read exactly what women want.

So its not shocking that affairs for women are seldom about sex though that is where it eventually leads to. They crave emotional intimacy and that is exactly what a guy "friend" who is a player will give them...emotional intimacy until then can push it to physical intimacy.

It's amazing, but all OM seem to have these things in common:

- they're all very easy to talk to
- they just want to "be there" for a woman
- they have no interest in sex (they're not like other men)
- they're just as shocked as the woman when things become "physical"
- yet, none of them are gay

cpx

Good Day All:

I have to agree. I am a man and yes men have the sex thing always on their mind. I guess the only difference between us is that some act on it and some do not, but the thoughts are there. Some men are predators and it is a game to get her in the sack. For others oppurtunity justs presents itself. There are lots of variables, but there is always a certain degree of sexual tension.

The difference between men and women is easy to spot in our society. In economic terms, just look at the law of supply and demand. The more demand there is for a product or service the more supply is increased. Count the number of male to female strip clubs in any given city. Count the number of men's porn magazines compared to those that cater to women. Male prostitutes to female prositutes. In any given industry were sex is involved the ratio of those that cater to men over women are extrodinary.

As for A's. I am in an industry where there are alot of A's due to conveniance. I have known in the past of numerous affairs of fellow workers, friends and family. The boostful waywards tell their tales of conquest to the applause of the other men. They also state how they keep their catch on the hook using emotion to keep the A alive. I know of men that actually target married women as they will have less problems down the road.

Do men sometimes get emotionally attached, through fog? Yes of course, there are all kinds of variables here. The state of the marriage, LB's etc... In general terms, men have sex on the mind from minute one.

IMO, the only differnce between us is that some act on it and some do not. Some may be more shy, scared, or insecure to act. I am not saying that all men are total pigs. Some do not act just because they have more constitution, and morality.

We are all not bad, we are just more wired that way. Is it possible for a man to not think of sex with a female friend. Anything is possible.

I am a man and yes men have the sex thing always on their mind
You need to change this to, "I am a man and yes Ialways have the sex thing always on my mind."

WE all are naive about friendships..WE dont want to think a female will go after our husbands or vice versa..WE aslo dont want to believe someone ight perceive oppotunities with us that shouldnt be there...For the last 16 months my motto has been "friends who needs in em "

I've always been somewhat suspicious of men's motives where I'm concerned. I was brought up (by Mom's example) to be kind but cool to men other than family. That obviously worked, because I don't recall any situations where a guy was overtly flirting with me or even giving me the "eye".

At least that's how I WAS before H's A#1. Then I did a ridiculous 180 and started flirting. How stoopit <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> . I realized that the "vibe" thing that tells guys you're interested in furthering your acquaintance can be turned on and off easily.

I also realized that the many of the guys I though were just friendly guys would cross over the line of TOO friendly with the LEAST amount of encouragement. All it took was eye contact, a smile, and a shy tilt of the head. I am so ashamed to admit I used that...in an effort to try to boost my devastated self-esteem. FYI, that good feeling flirting provides is temporary. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Flirting led to disaster in my case and in H's case. Total disaster. We both had to learn the HARD way how to be nice, but not too friendly with the opposite sex. It's all about boundaries.

Since I turned off the "vibe" for good, I haven't had ONE guy overtly flirt with me (and I'm pretty good looking, if I do say so <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). I don't allow guys to get close enough to be GOOD friends. I'm almost phobic about it now, I think. H is too (with good reason <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> )

Lori

"I am a man and yes men have the sex thing always on their mind"
"You need to change this to, "I am a man and yes Ialways have the sex thing always on my mind."

OK Chris, touche. Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and should not have done so. I accept putting "I" into that sentance. It was implied anyway.

I stand by what I said. The word "always" is an absolute and so is implying all men. In general, men scope out women physically from the first second of contact. In general, men are much more prone to start a physical relationsip before an emotional one has developed.

If a new employee comes into a company, men in general men will comment on her physically before they comment on her mental strengths for the job. In general men will have a harder time being just friends with a member of the opposite sex that they find attractive.

Keeping my theories in mind. I had a much harder time with my W having a PA as I knew there was a strong EA to get her to the PA, which she did confirm to me. I would have found a one night stand easier to swallow then to deal with the fog and withdrawl that she had. He on the other hand was ready for PA the day she took him as a friend.

I am sorry if I offended you with my absolutes.

Yes...Women are niave about male friends. The problem lies with getting them to realize it.

jd

you know what's going on, don't you? I agree with you totally. it's kind hard to talk about football, fast cars and hot women with another woman. i suppose there are some cases where women and men can be good friends, but for the most part it doesn't happen. of course i remember trying to be friends with a girl i had a crush on. it was pretty obvious that our friendship was growing when we walked around holding hands and then kissing before each class. unless a man or woman is single or unmarried, it's probably not a good idea to have close friends of the opposite sex. believe me...i have know ladies who do the same friend thing just to get closer to the guy they like. it works both ways.

Many times it's not a case of being naive. Some women think they'll always be able to control just how far friendships will go. So they close their eyes to the potential hazards of being too close to another man (other than H/BF, etc.) because they don't want or expect anything to happen.

Sometimes "it" happens anyway...but by then, she's already in too deep.

Just another possible scenerio. You know, women are veeeery complex creatures. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Here's another idea. I think women truely do want to be friends with men. They want to have a relationship with someone "who likes me for me". I want them to like me for the ideas I have not for how I look or for sexual reasons. What they don't realize is that that friend should be a woman not a man.
There probably are a few men out there who are confused as to their motivations and don't immediately know that they have ill intentions. Confused meaning they haven't thought it out to the end result. They want to be the white night to the damsel in distress. To save her from her horrible "ogre" of a husband. But along the way a funny thing happens the knight starts to have unpure thoughts of his lady love. He may try to push these ideas out of his head but when oppurtunity arrives he acts. Whi is more naive the lady or this type of guy?

Naive = Too willing to believe that someone is telling the truth, that people's intentions in general are good or that life is simple and fair.

wow..

could this post get any more broadly generalized...

Sooo all men therefor are predators..incapable of seeing women as anything else but a conquest/potential conquest...

Yes...Women are niave about male friends. The problem lies with getting them to realize it.

I bumped my head when I fell off my chair reading that ...ouch... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

perhaps the hit to the head will help...
maybe it will knock the naiveness out of me... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

ARK

I'm really trying to control myself..... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

Why aren't women SCREAMING/YELLING/PROTESTING about the sterotypes that are being presented here?????

I mean, what.....women don't have brains?

To read this thread one would assume that men that are involved in A's are predators, and only out for one thing....SEX.

What about all the women that are the aggressors in A's?!?!?!?! Or was I the only man EVER to have a woman pursue HIM?!?!?!?! And she wasn't some slut from the red light district. She was as "every woman" as they come.

I grow tired of hearing a lot of men rationalize their way through recovery by making themselves think that their poor, little wife was ravaged by some "Mr. Hyde".

That's not the way it usually happens, and everyone here knows it.

Oscar

Well, call me naive, <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> but generalizations are a very valid form of inductive reasoning as long as they are based on a sufficient number of instances from which to draw a conclusion.

I am sure there are many women out there who FULLY understand the way men think, but I have found and experienced the opposite. I am not as clever as most women and was often quite surprised to discover that my male "friend" de jour was sexually interested in me! WTF! I couldn't believe it! I thought my male friends were basically girlfriends in pants. Not so.

Men are different from women and have different motivating factors in their relationships with others. And where women are often naive is when they ascribe their OWN motivations to males. We have to accept that sexes often seek entirely different things in a "friendship." They might just be in it for the friendship, but men are often sexually driven and not looking for just a "friend."

Melody,
Very well put thank you. Your right Men and Women constantly miscommunicate because "women are often naive is when they ascribe their OWN motivations to males" and vice verse. That concept is right out of "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus" I'm not saying that women don't have brains!! I'm saying exactly what Melody has so articulately stated.
Speaking of that book. Oscar are you in your "cave" right now?? Seems like we are a little angrier today than usual. I hope your wife doesn't ever "follow you in or meet you at the door."
I think most MBers would agree that the sexes would in general fill out Harley's EN's questionaires differently. IMHO most men would have SF in the top 3 if not 1. Admiration would also be high up on the list. Women would on average have SF in the top 5 but might have communication, family commitment or financial support higher on their list. I've actually seen these type of responses in thread after thread and in polls right here on MB. Sorry to throw a little emphirical evidence at the Grouch.

I grow tired of hearing a lot of men rationalize their way through recovery by making themselves think that their poor, little wife was ravaged by some "Mr. Hyde". Oscar I really think you are overreacting to this thread or maybe you've seen others where the OM were treated like Mr. Hydes. Some people say that women are the "gate keeper to sex" without their interest in doesn't happen. A theme that I've repeatedly seen on MB from FWWs is that sex wasn't big on their A priority list but that the EA was but that they felt it was big on the OMs list and because of the emotional closeness if the oppurtunity arose it happened.
Keep in mind, too, that Harley and others say it is natural to villianize the OP. This is so that you can continue to live with your S. This is a protective reaction. It's human nature. Sorry Oscar if that isn't an acceptable answer to you. I realize your perfect and we're not.
Oops not so perfect after all.

I guess I am not following this very well...and know that while I like a good debate I hate it on this forum...

If you are talking about friendships between single available people then I would agree that there may be a motivating sexual factor involved...

but isn't a big part of being single usually entangled with people seeking out mates??

If you are talking about friendships between people who one or both is committed and still applying the same type of sexual pursuit that is engaged in by single people I disagree...

I just don't buy the the male friends I have established...since my betrothal were/are sexually motivated...and realize that stating that...I stand to be accused of being naive in this belief...

I don't believe that the males friends I have made "pretends" to be "just friends"...

Your right Men and Women constantly miscommunicate because "women are often naive is when they ascribe their OWN motivations to males" and vice verse.

I don't think I constantly miscommunicate with people in my life...friends, family, or even spouse...I save all my miscommunication for here...and as a double bonus am often accused of being from Mars rather than my home planet of Venus.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
If this is true...then my whole life is a sham of what I "perceive"...vs what is really just a bunch of people not communicating on the same page...

People set their own boundaries...it has little to do with naiveness in my opinion...

Husbands...how many times have you expressed a concern to your wife about a male "friends" intentions?

This question to me seems so wrong...
wifeys friend can be anything/way he chooses...it is the wifes'(spouse male or female) responsibility in a marriage to set the boundaries that define her (his) comittment ..
his (her) intentions can be whatever...and it isn't naiveness which one crosses the line

I have male friends...some from way back when..
some newer...
my husband has never ever asked me that question...
I just asked him if he ever felt he needed to ask that question....
said nope...

If he did ask me that question...it would send red warning flags to me about MY behavior...not some male friends intentions...

ARK

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ark^^:


I don't believe that the males friends I have made "pretends" to be "just friends"...

I don't think I constantly miscommunicate with people in my life...friends, family, or even spouse...I save all my miscommunication for here...and as a double bonus am often accused of being from Mars rather than my home planet of Venus.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
ARK <hr /></blockquote>Ark, first off, I don't think these males in question "pretend" to be just friends. I think they have a sexual interest in the relationship that women are often not aware of. That doesn't mean they aren't "friends" but just that they have a different motivational force. [and I refer to women and men, married and single]

For example, I have 2 very dear male friends, one who has been my friend for 17 years. For 10 years we went out to dinner together every Friday night before our Friday AA meeting. Never in all those years did he ever make a pass or an untoward remark. He was [IS] my friend and I thought of him like a brother.

However, when my last marriage ended he asked me out for a REAL DATE. This surprised me because I never thought of him in that light. He DID think of me in that light - and always had.

My point is that I always viewed him as my male girlfriend and never imagined that he would view me as dating material. I can cite 5 other similar examples in my life.

Now, does that mean he is NOT my friend or he is a "sexual predator?" Of course not!! He is my dear friend to this day, but it simply emphasizes that men often think differently than women and my mistake was to ascribe MY OWN feelings about our "friendship" to him. We are different!

And that does not go to say that your male friends are not absolutely platonic and a sexual thought never crosses their brains. You certainly would know better than anyone here. But your experience does not cancel out the validity of the generality. A generality does not profess to apply to 100% of its subjects, but to many. So one example, or even 10, does not invalidate the generality.

Its been awhile since I read it, but this is an occurance that was outlined in the book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus by John Gray, Ph.D. I also recently read an article where a top MC from Chicago claimed that 82% of those presenting with affairs started with a "friendship."

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ark^^:


If he did ask me that question...it would send red warning flags to me about MY behavior...not some male friends intentions...

ARK <hr /></blockquote>And I agree 100% with this statement. The responsibility for my behavior lies 100% with me regardless of my male friends' intentions. That being said, I am now very cautious with my male friends and make sure no one gets the wrong idea.

Woman may be naive, but certainly not more naive than men. I am living proof of how naive a man can be. I trusted my wife and a friend whose exterior credentials were excellent.

I totally disagree with this thread. Women know other women, and women know how to work men to where we look innocent and they look like the "sexual predators". For instance, men who are more sensitive or emotional want to help a damsel in distress and be their knight in shining armor. And women eat that up. Also, women know that men are attracted to physicalness, so they dress the part, and women also know how to work body language and laugh at mens jokes to where the man feels like the king in a castle.
Yep, all women are this way and all men are that way.
How do you like that generalization? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
Seriously, I think this thread is a little off base, and depending on the people, the situation, and the circumstances, some women are naive...some men are naive. Some WOMEN, yes WOMEN, want just sex, or just whoever will hold them and love them that particular day- and some MEN are the same way.
It all comes down to being responsible for your own behavior, instead of playing the blame game.

Melody,
Once again you said it the way that I meant.

To everyone else,
I realize that generalizations aren't popular these days. It's too easy to upset someone's sense of correctness. Regardless of this trend towards politcal correctness (or any other type of correctness) there are general trends in the way people behave in certain circumstances. It is facinating. It's called sociology.

I guess everyone's just a bit tense. Probably runs with our territory here at MB.

Didn't mean to offend.

Thanks again Melody,

cwmac

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by auto009988:

Woman may be naive, but certainly not more naive than men. I am living proof of how naive a man can be. I trusted my wife and a friend whose exterior credentials were excellent.<hr /></blockquote>Amen brother!

mel,

you said...
However, when my last marriage ended he asked me out for a REAL DATE. This surprised me because I never thought of him in that light. He DID think of me in that light - and always had.

We all sexual beings....we all acknowledge both consciously and unconsciously...this to all those we encounter...

Your example in my opinion is much different then cw's broad generalization and overview of male friends...
your friend made these thoughts/feelings known to you only when you were potentially available...even though they may have existed...consciously or unconsciously throughout your friendship...I doubt they were the driving force in the friendship...
which is what cw's original post seems to suggest to me....
besides Melody how could you male friends help themselves from being attracted to you...duh!!??
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

cw's original post states
Men...how many times have you pretended to be "just friends" with a woman so that you could spend time with her and hopefully persuade her to become more?

and then the comparison of hormonelly driven teens to grown men...in my opinion don't equal each-other...

They want to have a relationship with someone "who likes me for me". I want them to like me for the ideas I have not for how I look or for sexual reasons. What they don't realize is that that friend should be a woman not a man.

I think all people want friendships with people who like "me for me"...male, female, other...
and I think this is more a driving force than male or female sexuality....in the pursuit of friendship...

I may not even disagree the generality ...but I don't believe it applies only to men...
both men and women have sexual thoughts about eachother...that does not mean deep fantasies but normal curiosity....and fleeting thoughts of I wonder what he/she is like in this or that situation...not even necessarily specific to me..

just the acknowledgement that we are all sexual beings...

What's getting me most on this post...is CW's jumping to that any disagreement or debating his post...must mean that we are just a bit "tense" and his comments to Oscar about being in a cave and about his wife....yuck....

I don't think this is a male/mars issue...
it's a human issue on both sides...

ARK

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ark^^:

We all sexual beings....we all acknowledge both consciously and unconsciously...this to all those we encounter...

Your example in my opinion is much different then cw's broad generalization and overview of male friends...
your friend made these thoughts/feelings known to you only when you were potentially available...even though they may have existed...consciously or unconsciously throughout your friendship...I doubt they were the driving force in the friendship...
which is what cw's original post seems to suggest to me....
besides Melody how could you male friends help themselves from being attracted to you...duh!!??
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

cw's original post states
Men...how many times have you pretended to be "just friends" with a woman so that you could spend time with her and hopefully persuade her to become more?

and then the comparison of hormonelly driven teens to grown men...in my opinion don't equal each-other...<hr /></blockquote>Ark, I just don't see that my example is different at all. Just because my friend did not push me in all those years, doesn't change the fact that his main interest was SEXUAL. I don't understand why that is so hard to see. I can give other examples where my "friend" did not wait until I was divorced.

We might all be "sexual beings" but men are generally more sexually driven than women and more aggressive. We can't pretend here like women are just guys without penises. We are not. The differences go FAR beyond that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I think all people want friendships with people who like "me for me"...male, female, other...
and I think this is more a driving force than male or female sexuality....in the pursuit of friendship...<hr /></blockquote>I think very few sociologists would agree that men and women think alike and are seeking the same things in friendships.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I may not even disagree the generality ...but I don't believe it applies only to men...
both men and women have sexual thoughts about eachother...that does not mean deep fantasies <hr /></blockquote>Again, no one said it applied only to men. Those are your words. But, we are TALKING ABOUT MEN here. Again, a generalization is NOT disproved by producing ONE EXCEPTION [or even 10] because a generalization does not profess to apply to 100% in the FIRST PLACE. It is expected that there are exceptions.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't think this is a male/mars issue...
it's a human issue on both sides...

ARK [/qb]<hr /></blockquote>And I find it hard to believe that women are just men without penises and tend to believe what sociolologists affirm, women and men..........ARE DIFFERENT! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

[ October 29, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]

CWMac,

No, actually I wasn't in an especially bad mood yesterday. The first page of this post made me angry, however. I did not like what I saw as "male-bashing", and the implication that ALL men, in ALL their "friendships" (which aren't really friendships, because the MEN aren't being HONEST about their intentions) with women are all based on the sexual thoughts/drive/fantasies of the MAN.

I do not believe that this issue is as one sided as would appear in the beginning of this discussion. I am glad that some have some forward to argue the point that women can be just as deceptive as men in their roles in relationships, and that men, and women, can actually be friends. While it is an acknowledged fact that most men have a sexual thought every seven seconds or so, that does not mean that those thoughts are the BASIS for a friendship. Because I might at some point have a passing thought, of a sexual nature, about a woman, does not mean that I am only "acting" as her friend in order to "lure" her to some sexual lare. It is insulting to both MEN and WOMEN to believe that we are all this shallow and naive.

And Melody,

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Again, no one said it applied only to men. Those are your words. But, we are TALKING ABOUT MEN here. Again, a generalization is NOT disproved by producing ONE EXCEPTION [or even 10] because a generalization does not profess to apply to 100% in the FIRST PLACE. It is expected that there are exceptions. <hr /></blockquote>Generalizations cannot be disproven, because of their very nature. That is what makes them so dangerous and deceptive. As far as I'm concerned, the best use for generalizations is identifying the prejudices of the speaker. Generalizations are like opinions, and most of us know what opinions are like.

I welcome a good, honest debate as much as the next person. But I don't like "bashing" or "mob mentality".

Oscar <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Mel,

the difference that I see is that CW's post is pretend friendship...sexually motivated...from the onstart...which is how he is painting very broadly male friendships between women..
singularily ruled by sexuality alone...

I don't think your friend remained your friend all those years based soley on a sexual pursuit of you....which again seems to be what cw believes males intentions are within male/female friendships....

and women who don't see that in every male friend are naive...

I don't buy that generalization...

I believe men and women think and communicate differently...
I don't think they are the same...

and even the five or more times/men in your life....that's an small number compared to the other number of men who never professed a more intimate thought about you...

I certainly have experienced the same...people who professed attraction to me that suprised me....but it didn't lead me to conclude that men in general are all thinking those same lines...

while still acknowledging that men and women think/process differently...
I can't apply that to all men...

I think very few sociologists would agree that men and women think alike and are seeking the same things in friendships.

so do you believe all male friendships are sexually motivated??

my social male friends want the same things as I do......people to do social things with...

ARK

Desexualizing men AND women, is always a risky proposition no matter if its a woman OR a man doing it. We've seen how innocent friendships have mutated into full blown affairs simply because the man and the woman inititally treated each other as though they were of the same gender.

[ October 29, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: T00MuchCoffeeMan ]

Oscar, you have just made a sweeping generalization with this remark:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"Generalizations cannot be disproven, because of their very nature. That is what makes them so dangerous and deceptive. As far as I'm concerned, the best use for generalizations is identifying the prejudices of the speaker. Generalizations are like opinions, and most of us know what opinions are like."<hr /></blockquote>Is that your opinion? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

If all generalizations are invalid, then so is yours by default [according to you]. If all generalizations indicate a prejudice on the part of the user, then you have just indicted yourself with your generalization.

However, your generalization is not invalid BECAUSE it is a generalization, but because it is made on the basis on no evidence. That is called a SWEEPING GENERALIZATION. Your conclusion far exceeds what the evidence would support. [not to mention that it is self refuting]

But, all generalizations are not invalid. Generalizations are a very valid and relevant method of communication. Inductive reasoning is based on the ability to generalize from repeated experiences or observations. The soundness of an inductive generalization is based on whether there is a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion and whether the conclusion supported by the evidence.

If we have no generalizations, we have no inductive reasoning and cannot function.

For example, take the generalization that "men like sports." We know that a sufficient number of men like sports in order to make that generalization. However, we also know that some men do not like sports and can even produce a few men who hate sports. Does that "disprove" or invalidate that generalization? Of course not.

A generalization, by its nature, does not preclude exceptions. A generalization is not an EXACT SCIENCE, doesn't pretend to be, and does not presume to identify 100% of its group. Therefore, it can't be invalidated with ONE example [or 1000] of a man who doesn't like sports.

Somehow, in the anti-intellectual political correctness movement, generalizations have been dismissed [usually by making sweeping or hasty generalizations!! lol] and I think partly because folks often can't discuss the issue at hand. Folks don't seem to understand the difference between a sweeping generalization and a valid generalization. However, generalizations are an absolutely neccessary, valid function of communication.

Generalizations are everywhere such as in the clothing industry, food industry, agricultural industry, magazine industry, film industry, insurance industry and on and on. The problem with generalizations is when some people try to make them into absolutes or when they are based on faulty information.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ark^^:


so do you believe all male friendships are sexually motivated??

my social male friends want the same things as I do......people to do social things with...

ARK <hr /></blockquote>Again, ark, you are applying a standard here that is not appropriate and using it to dismiss a valid generalization because you can't relate to it. No one ever said that ALL MALE friendships are sexually motivated. I believe that most ARE.

Sociologists acknowledge that men seek very different things in relationships than women. One of the top EN's of men is sexual function.

Your anecdotes don't in any way invalidate my anecdotes. But I have seen enough of this phenomenom and know how men think well enough to understand that men are looking for different things out of a friendship than women. Where women get into trouble, is when they ascribe their OWN feelings to men. That is a big mistake. Men and women are wired differently. We can't pretend that men and women are the same. They aren't.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by T00MuchCoffeeMan:
 Generalizations are everywhere such as in the clothing industry, food industry, agricultural industry, magazine industry, film industry, insurance industry and on and on. The problem with generalizations is when some people try to make them into absolutes or when they are based on faulty information. <hr /></blockquote>Agree. There are invalid generalizations, but a generalization, just by its nature, is not an absolute. It doesn't profess to be so.

toomuch says..

We've seen how innocent friendships have mutated into full blown affairs simply because the man and the woman inititally treated each other as though they were of the same gender.

I don't get it..
a man treating a woman like a man...would not lead to an affair...

nor would a woman treating a man like a woman...

friendships cross lines (never innocently) when people don't set boundaries within themselves...

I think we are all sexual beings in all activities in our lives..
I would never de-sexualize anyone...

mel said..

No one ever said that ALL MALE friendships are sexually motivated. I believe that most ARE.

i don't believe that...which is fine for you and me...and I don't believe that makes me naive...

and i don't think men and women think the same...

Sociologists acknowledge that men seek very different things in relationships than women.

relationships and friendships are very different things....

Where women get into trouble, is when they ascribe their OWN feelings to men.
I don't think ascribing their own feelings gets them in trouble..it is the lack of boundaries that gets them in trouble....

I don't believe in the generalization that men are sexually motivated in friendships..
necessarily and more or less than women are...

doesn't make you/me right or wrong like you said...

Again, ark, you are applying a standard here that is not appropriate and using it to dismiss a valid generalization because you can't relate to it.

I can't relate to it... not because I haven't had similiar experiences..I have...I just haven't drawn the same conclusion from them....

this is not to dismiss or deny that there can be great pitfalls and danger in male/female relationships when one or all are married...

I'm not against generalizations...atleast I never thought I was....
I just find this one not to be so one sided and generalized as originally presented...

it's a good thing I don't like to debate... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

ARK

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ark^^:

it's a good thing I don't like to debate... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

ARK <hr /></blockquote>lol! me either, Ark! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Many WW's want to stay "friends" with their BS after the A. Is friendship an indicator of a woman's feeling of self worth?
Hence they make "friends" with the OM to boost a flagging self esteem. The rest as they say is history.

Melody Lane,

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> If all generalizations are invalid, then so is yours by default [according to you]. If all generalizations indicate a prejudice on the part of the user, then you have just indicted yourself with your generalization. <hr /></blockquote>I never said generalizations were invalid; as to prejudices, we all have them. Yours is against men having women friends, mine is against people who paint an entire sex with the same brush.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> However, your generalization is not invalid BECAUSE it is a generalization, but because it is made on the basis on no evidence. <hr /></blockquote>Really...now would that be a "sweeping generalization"?

As I stated earlier, and still believe, "generalization" is nothing more than a big word for "opinion". And your opinions AND generalizations are based upon life experiences, or in some cases, the experiences of others. So, because you have had different life experiences than I have, and because my "evidence" locker contains different items than yours, mine is moot? Hence the problem with generalizations.

As with opinions, they can't be proven wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as bad as it might be; the same with generalizations.

Someone growing up in rural Texas will have greatly differing "generalizations" about men and women than someone who grew up in New York City.

The other problem with generalization is that, at least in this case, it's exclusionary. Why aren't we talking about women, and only men? I still say women can be as predatory as men. And that is based on my life experiences, which provides the "evidence" for my "generalization".

I especially like when someone calls me names, and tries to camoflage it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Somehow, in the anti-intellectual political correctness movement, generalizations have been dismissed [usually by making sweeping or hasty generalizations!! lol] and I think partly because folks often can't discuss the issue at hand. Folks don't seem to understand the difference between a sweeping generalization and a valid generalization. However, generalizations are an absolutely neccessary, valid function of communication. <hr /></blockquote>Well, this "stupid, p/c, sweeping generalizer" actually believes that the reason MOST people tend to discount generalizations is because they recognize that they are so "arbitrary". The "facts" change with every person and observation, so they are of little use, other than anecdotal.

JMO

Oscar the stupid, p/c Grouch <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

[ October 29, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: OtG ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OtG:
I never said generalizations were invalid; as to prejudices, we all have them.<hr /></blockquote>Sure you did: [and you made another generalization in the bargain when you said we all have prejudices]

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"That is what makes them so dangerous and deceptive. As far as I'm concerned, the best use for generalizations is identifying the prejudices of the speaker. Generalizations are like opinions, and most of us know what opinions are like."<hr /></blockquote>If those comments are your attempt to VALIDATE generalizations then you sure have me fooled.

Or were you validating generalizations when you finished your most recent post with:

"Well, this "stupid, p/c, sweeping generalizer" actually believes that the reason MOST people tend to discount generalizations is because they recognize that they are so "arbitrary"."

Saying that they are no better than "opinions, which are like a**holes" is not validating language to this silly old gal. Nor is saying they are "arbitrary," "dangerous and deceptive." Call me a silly heart, but that does not sound like validating language to me.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Yours is against men having women friends, mine is against people who paint an entire sex with the same brush. <hr /></blockquote>I have no prejudices against men having female friends, so I haven't a clue where you came up with that conclusion because it's not based in fact. I have never claimed any such thing.

A generalization is a generalization, a prejudice is a prejudice. Words have meanings. Prejudice is not inherent in the practice of generalizing. If I say that women have breasts its not because I am "prejudiced," but the process of inductive reasoning tells me from past experience that women have breasts. If I say men like sports, its not because I am "prejudiced," but because I have a sufficient number of instances from which to draw a conclusion.

One MUST generalize if they use the practice of inductive reasoning, that has NOTHING to do with prejudice.

Nor does a generalization "paint an entire sex with the same brush." A generalization never claims to ascribe to 100% of its members. Let's take the generalization I gave above, that "men like sports." There is nothing "prejudicial" about that. Nor does it paint men with a broad brush, because it is simple common sense that with generalizations, it does not apply to 100% of its members.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

As I stated earlier, and still believe, "generalization" is nothing more than a big word for "opinion". And your opinions AND generalizations are based upon life experiences, or in some cases, the experiences of others. <hr /></blockquote>Inductive reasoning is based upon the ability to generalize from repeated experiences or observations. The soundness of an inductive generalization can usually be determined if we have a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion and the terms are consistent with the terms of the evidence.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As with opinions, they can't be proven wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as bad as it might be; the same with generalizations. <hr /></blockquote>Of course opinions can be proven wrong. There are right opinions and wrong opinions. There are stupid opinions. There are educated opinions. All opinions are not equal. If I say that I believe my dog is a cat, you could easily prove me wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The other problem with generalization is that, at least in this case, it's exclusionary. Why aren't we talking about women, and only men? I still say women can be as predatory as men. <hr /></blockquote>And you are making a "generalization" and being just as "exclusionary" when you say so. Of course we are being "exclusionary" when we are talking about women in this context. We are also not talking about dogs and the price of eggs. So what?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Well, this "stupid, p/c, sweeping generalizer" actually believes that the reason MOST people tend to discount generalizations is because they recognize that they are so "arbitrary". <hr /></blockquote>Isn't it dangerous, deceptive and prejudicial to make such sweeping generalizations? Or is it "arbitrary" as you state? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Ok by me.

Oh Boy!

I just love this. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Since logic, math, ect is my business, you guys are arguing in my alley. So do we talk about men and women, or do we talk about logic, math, and the need to be able to generalize?? What's it going to be folks? Pick your poison. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I guess I will start with men and women. I think the orginal question is valid. It is baised because it came from a male who was betrayed, but it is none the less valid. IT WAS NOT A SLAP AT MEN OR EVEN WOMEN. It was simply a question for people to consider.

Having said that, I think Melody got the jist that this is a question. Now I will make a "generalization" which I KNOW TO BE CORRECT. Men, are driven by sexual thoughts. Want data look up the research. In one paper I have read the claim was the men think about sex about every 10 seconds.

If you want to dispute the number I will spot you every 1 minute, or 10 minutes. Men think of sex when around women. That generalization is correct.

Are there exceptions?? Yes, gay men probably don't think much about women. Elderly men may not think much about sex depending on the state of their hormones. Men who have been castrated don't think that much about sex. Does it make the generalization less correct? No.

Now as to the question. It was not to seek an answer that women are dumb, naive, or stupid, and it certainly was not to illict the response that all men are sexual pigs that can not think of anything else (people forget that most corporations, most construction, and most everything was built by men) so clearly we do think about other things SOMETIMES. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> )

I think the question had a sublety that Melodey picked up. I could have rephrased this question as Melody effectively did.

Is it possible that women view male friends as they do female friends, thus leaving themselves vulnerable to those men that are willing to take advantage of that friendship?

Is that the question originally asked but slightly rephrased? If that were the question would Oscar be so offended? Would there be this debate about men being sexual pigs with only one thing on their mind. (Actually, that is why men compartmentalize so well, sex is always around, but we can think of other things and are capable of ignoring our sexual thoughts for more constructive actions.)

If the answer to this question was yes, they sometimes do treat men as they do female friends, the next part of the question is "do you think that is bad, good, or indifferent?"

So, yes the question had an implied generalization (men are more focused on sex than women), but does it naturally lead to "men are all pigs", that seemed to offend a few here? I don't think so.

So now about the Math of generalizations. When we talk about what men, women, people do or don't do, we are talking about distribution functions. These functions have height, and width, and they have what are call "tails". The "generalization" is a statement about the mean width of the distribution where much of any population of examples sit. The higher the distribution the more this width narrows and encompasses larger fractions of the stated population of examples. But, unless the distribution function becomes what is called a "delta function", there are always examples beyond the "generalization".

However, the "generalization" must be valid, and supported by fact for it to be a "generalization" (there would be no statistics if this weren't so). If it is not supported by fact, then it is just a "guess", an "assumption", or worse "wrong". But, it is not a "generalization".

I will spare you the pain of me writing equations and mathematically defining these terms, but suffice it to say, a "generalization" is based on facts, but it does NOT mean that all examples or statistics lie within the "generalization".

So I would like to suggest that you consider this question in the phrasology that I have mentioned, or perhaps you could rephrase the questions yourselves to represent what you think the original poster here was trying to learn or consider.

I personally think that women do end up in PA's because they fail to realize how men will want to exhibit a " deep friendship". However, I think that women's need for a "deep friendship" thus leading to an EA, has nothing to do with how men view friendships or how sexual men would like to make it.

I think that was what Adgirl was trying to address. She even implied that women might use sex to achieve what they really want: an EA.

But, I suspect that really wasn't the intent of the original question. I suspect this question was focused on those affairs that start out without ANYONE looking to have an affair, but end up that way, specifically in a PA.

OK folks, let'er rip. This is going to be fun and we all might even learn something. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

God Bless,

JL

Just Learning,
You were inspirational to me when I first came to this site 18 months ago and nothing has changed. (Including my ability to ask a subtle question. Still can't do it very well.)

digdigdigdigdigdigdig

that's me digging myself deeper..and deeper and deeper...

Men, are driven by sexual thoughts. Want data look up the research. In one paper I have read the claim was the men think about sex about every 10 seconds.

The occurance of men thinking about sex every 10 seconds does not automatically lead to being driven by sex...

the brain being chemical and electrical impulses..and being wired does not necessarilly equal a driving force..

it could be that it just is...
the occurance of sexual thoughts passing through the sysnapses...does not equate to a driving force in iniating and or maintaining a friendship...by males...
the thought pass through the brain in a fleeting millisecond...and are "normal" to the brain...and most likely not even acknowledged on a very conscious level..

the occurance of the firing of these sexual neurons would be totally natural for a male brain...
God could I generalize anymore myself on this post... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> ??

Is it possible that women view male friends as they do female friends, thus leaving themselves vulnerable to those men that are willing to take advantage of that friendship?

they are vulnerable not because of the male brain they are vulnerable because it is damaging to a marriage to betray issues that exist with their spouse to either sex....
male or female...

males don't take advantage of that friendship...they are given signals..
and both male and female are potentially up for misperceiving those signals....

i am unfullfilled in my marriage...

without the signals from the female of unmet needs...the the male friend still has the same amount of the ten second sexual thought passing through....with no motivation to act on it...

and certainly some do act on it regardless of signals...those aren't men...those are just dogs... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Something else has to occur within that relationship to have an effect on the sexual impulses of a male brain....
or logically males would be victims to the ten second rule...thus engaging in all friendships in the same manner...
which is not the case...

dig dig dig dig dig dig

I do not disagree nor am I offended by any of this...
I just don't buy that the male wired brain...equal male sexual driven relationships with friends...

but then again I am naive... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
ARK

ARK,

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Something else has to occur within that relationship to have an effect on the sexual impulses of a male brain....
or logically males would be victims to the ten second rule...thus engaging in all friendships in the same manner...
which is not the case...

dig dig dig dig dig dig

I do not disagree nor am I offended by any of this...
I just don't buy that the male wired brain...equal male sexual driven relationships with friends...<hr /></blockquote>ARK, I really don't disagree with you. Either party could stop the "friendship" from going further and they don't.

But, perhaps rephrasing this a bit might make it clearer. Let's start with another "generalization" which is not really all that good, but permit me. Let me speculate (rather than generalize) that men are more hurt by a W having a PA, and women are more hurt by their H having an EA.

So given that this question was asked by a male, and given that the resulting relationship (affair) is bad, then the question might be: Does the A endup as a PA because the woman misunderstands the male motivation? It is a given it is going to an EA. In fact, a male my play on a woman's need for emotional connection to arrive where he wants: a physical connection. But, you might well argue this was not a true friendship but someone using the other persons and exploiting their weakness or the weakness of their marriage.

I still think this was asked as an informational question by the original poster. Wondering whether a woman not realizing that most men think about getting in woman's pants (whether they act on that or not) causes her to be more vulnerable.

You know one thing I have observed in this thread is that no one has simply answered his question with a resounding NO. That would be a valid answer, and perhaps lead to the discussion that has followed. But, no one has really answered his question YES or NO.

If you feel the answer is NO, why is that ARK? You know you could be right? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Must go.

God Bless,

JL

I think that was what Adgirl was trying to address. She even implied that women might use sex to achieve what they really want: an EA.

Correct. I was also implying that some men- especially men who are more emotional or sensitive- are also naive. Especially if you have emotional man + aggressive woman.
I think in my ex-'s affair it was the opposite though. I was the more aggressive one and he was more laid back- I truly believe in their case, he was the original aggressor and she was looking to get out of her marriage and found her out.
But I digress.....

[ October 29, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: adgirl48 ]

JL,

To be honest I didn't see a question anywhere in the original post...

BUT re-reading it the word friend is really "friend"..

I have male friends...I don't have any male "friends"...and don't plan on it ever...

Wondering whether a woman not realizing that most men think about getting in woman's pants (whether they act on that or not) causes her to be more vulnerable.

I don't think that my male friends think about getting in my pants....and even if they do so what...

even with the ten second rule in place..it is not a motivating factor in being my friend...it is just the wiring and firing of synapses...

So I do not think that my being friends with males is sexually motivated by them....

I don't think their thoughts can make me more vulnerable...I can always make myself vulnerable..

When I am with my male friends thinking of chocolate cake... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> does that make them gain weight...ha ha...

I remain accountable regardless of their thought process...

can males and females be friends...I think so...
with boundaries in place...definitly...
without sexual motivations driving that friendship?
definitly...

ARK

Ark,
Since I was the original poster, I'm the only one who can answer my intent. Not you. Yes it was meant as a question. To illicit opinions and conversation. A question can be posed as a statement that offers response while some questions are rhetorical in nature. Didn't think it would cause nasty responses (especially Oscar's}

CWMAC,

Are you tired of me acting like I can read your mind and failing miserably??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Well, that won't stop me, no way. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

ARK,

You said <blockquote>quote:<hr />can males and females be friends...I think so...
with boundaries in place...definitly...
without sexual motivations driving that friendship?
definitly...
<hr /></blockquote>I could not agree with you more. I think the key is the boundaries and here may be the crux of CWMAC's question.

Men have friendships, sometimes very deep friendships, most men really never divulge to their friends things about their sex life, what is bothering them emotionally, their fears, etc. It does happen, but it is usually with a life long friend. Sometimes will brag about sexual things, but even that is mostly BS (and I don't mean betrayed spouse here)

Now, I have observed that women do talk to each other. And they will talk about many things that men would find far to personal to speak to their friends about. I realize not all women do this, but I am constantly astounded by what women know about each other, and even each other's marriages, including sex life.

Now, if you will allow me these two observations, what I think CWMAC was alluding to, was that when women make friends with men, do they treat them the same way? Do they open up to men at levels men don't usually do about emotional needs, family problems, husbands, etc.? Now if they do, the male in question has just been given a road map to this woman's heart. He knows what she wants to hear, how she wants to hear it, what she likes to eat, what kind of flowers she likes,etc. Now IF this man is sexually attracted to this woman and odds are high that he will be somewhat no matter what, then he has a road map to the bed, IF there are no boundaries in place by the female or the male in question.

I believe that CWMAC may have been asking the following. If a woman views male friendships as female friendships, is she therefore less likely to put boundaries in place to protect herself?

What most men preceive as the "openness" that women seem to exhibit with one another, could lead to a vulnerability if this "openness" is offered to a male, especially a male without boundaries of their own.

How'd I do CWMAC? Was that your mind I picked up or was it the giant solar flare, messin with my brain??

ARK, does this make more sense? Or you still disagree?

God Bless,

JL

PS: If you ask me, I think the answer is yes, they are more vulnerable because women sometimes do not put that boundary in place, and further do like the male attention, especially when it can be focussed so that it meets her needs. Harley was no fool. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Adgirl,

Are you suggesting that men may be a bit naive about female friends??? All I can say is: "You KNOOOOW what I like." Said in his best Big Booper, Chantilly Lace, voice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

God Bless,

JL

Just Learning,

All I need to say is..............Yoo da Man!!

By the way Ark^^^, there was a literal question in the title of the post

CPX,

An insightful list of things OM have in common, we should grow on a separate thread, maybe? What do you think of these, (heard from my ww)
- they never disagree with you
- they always pay rapt attention to you
- they all say they have never known anyone like you
- they all say they knew they always loved you and always will
- they all say you are the best in bed, far better than anyone in their life
- they all say there was something very special about the two of you together and that you both just had to be”

jack

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Just Learning:
 Adgirl,

Are you suggesting that men may be a bit naive about female friends??? All I can say is: "You KNOOOOW what I like." Said in his best Big Booper, Chantilly Lace, voice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

God Bless,

JL <hr /></blockquote>Absolutely!!! I have a male friend that I have dated some. We both said we could date others too. He teaches with a girl and they are both first year teachers at that school. He says he is not attracted to her and that he is just friends with her and it is possible. Yet she oozes with like for him - body language, laughing at his jokes, showing up places where she knows he will be, asking him what he is doing after we go somewhere.....the usual stuff. My friends saw it right away. I saw it right away. He was clueless. He says they are just friends and she does not have feelings for him. I say RIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT.
Of course, maybe I am naive to talk about other girls to someone I used to date and would like to possibly date in the future!

I guess that it all comes down to men knowing men best and women knowing women best.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by T00MuchCoffeeMan:
 I guess that it all comes down to men knowing men best and women knowing women best. <hr /></blockquote>I would agree.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />can males and females be friends...I think so...
with boundaries in place...definitly...
without sexual motivations driving that friendship?
definitly...
<hr /></blockquote>Sorry I have to disagree here. Those boundaries normally have to include a total lack of physical attraction.

Women tend to become drawn to men they establish emotional intimacy with.

Men tend to respond to women that show interest in them.

Its a harsh reality that sharing such intimate conversations often leads to EA and then PA.

Survey all the one time only affairees and you will see for the most part it all started innocently as just someone to talk to.

Sorry this is a playing with fire area that even the Harley's say is off limits.

You see if you have the level of friendship described boundaries or not you are already changing the how love deposits are made between husband and wife. Plus you are setting up "secret" sharing a precursor to having an affair because the relationship even at the friendsip level has an air of secrecy shared between a man and woman who are not each other's spouses. And it has someone other than the spouse meeting the important need of emotional intimacy.

You want some form of statistical proof then keep in mind the largest place where affairs are born are in the work place. And its in the work place where males and females have a common bond with each other not shared with their spouses. So imagine the danger of sharing intimates feelings with someone not your spouse.

[ October 31, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: stunned-dad-fast recovering ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> An insightful list of things OM have in common, we should grow on a separate thread, maybe? What do you think of these, (heard from my ww)
- they never disagree with you
- they always pay rapt attention to you
- they all say they have never known anyone like you
- they all say they knew they always loved you and always will
- they all say you are the best in bed, far better than anyone in their life
- they all say there was something very special about the two of you together and that you both just had to be”

<hr /></blockquote>I think if you did a poll, most WS would say that every one of these apply to OP, whether OP was a male or a female.

OtG

[ October 31, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: OtG ]

Since I was the original poster, I'm the only one who can answer my intent. Not you. Yes it was meant as a question. To illicit opinions and conversation. A question can be posed as a statement that offers response while some questions are rhetorical in nature. Didn't think it would cause nasty responses (especially Oscar's}

Well since i am just to stupid to see the question...thought it was posted more as a statement or belief on your part...which you are certainly entitled to...

By the way Ark^^^, there was a literal question in the title of the post

and with all honesty...I am having trouble seeing the literal question with the word friend in italics...

I know what I think the difference is between friend and "friend"...but am not sure what your differentiating use of the italics mean...

should women have male "friends" ? nope
can women have male friends ? yep

If you would like to clarify for me perhaps that would help..instead of just putting me down for being to dumb to grasp what you are "asking" that would be fine...

To take this deeper...it's almost like saying women communicate emotionally with people..and that emotional communication with other women is acceptable...and emotional communcation with males is wrong because of how men are "wired"

AND I do agree that the sexes communicate differently....

I think that people can betray their marriage and spouses with their communication regardless of too which sex they are communicating it..that boundaries should be in place for both sexes...

stunned said...
Its a harsh reality that sharing such intimate conversations often leads to EA and then PA.

i agree 100% with that statement...
And take it further that sharing intimate conversations with same sex friends can also damage a marriage. And if a spouse says to there wife that it is OK to initmately devulge to females not males...(and they may not say this concretely but imply/infer it by saying...

Oh you're talking to Suzie...and accept that talking to Suzie includes emotional marital verbage about needs and personal marriage stuff...
and then say

Oh you're talking to Joe and say that talking to Joe about emotional marital verbage is wrong because of how JOE's brain is wired is a mixed message and wrong of the (male) spouse in the first place...

Ownership lies with the woman's communication style...not the males wiring...

Are women naive about this...
OK...if that's what people want me to say here...

BUT the men (spouses) are naive in sending a mixed message to the wife in permitting it with females and drawing a line with males....

Women tend to become drawn to men they establish emotional intimacy with.

Men tend to respond to women that show interest in them.

Then how does one who is married establish social friendships with couples?

I in my lifetime have made friends...not "friends" with male co-workers...and being the social planner that I am...have then established friendships with their spouses...which has then lead to a friendship with those two people that includes my spouse as well...

not sexually driven...
driven by social needs...

And while I have male friends with whom my husband is not as "close" to as I am..it also is not on a sexual intimate basis...it is more on a history of socializing that was in place long before me and my spouse dated and married...

that i have male friends that I knew and hung with prior to marriage that I still have some contact with...

These friends are someone who I can be in contact with...do something social with...and not be based on a sexual wiring or pursuit...
I believe that and do not think i am naive...

I am not advocating male/female intimate friendships by any any any means....

Plus you are setting up "secret" sharing a precursor to having an affair because the relationship even at the friendsip level has an air of secrecy shared between a man and woman who are not each other's spouses. And it has someone other than the spouse meeting the important need of emotional intimacy.

agree totally with that as well...
if the original poster meant "friends" and not friends...then I agree...
are women naive about that....
could be...
but could also be that they know exactly what they are doing/saying to these male friends since they are the ones creating secrecy...creation of secrecy is not an naive act...

CW
If your post was
as you said...

[B]Since I was the original poster, I'm the only one who can answer my intent. Not you. Yes it was meant as a question. To illicit opinions and conversation.[B]

the surely I have risen to occasion to give opinion and conversation...
and for whatever reason it has appeared to anger you and others...
not my intent..
mean on offense
appreciate others opinions and thoughts as I a have always attempted to do here...

Perhaps I need to step away from marriage builders ...
dont' know..
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> ARK

ark

Hey please don't think differing views are personal attacks or put downs.

I have been "freinds" with numerous women and deeply to the point they tell me things as a man I would drather not hear. Including deep sexual conversation about their boyfriend (mainly when I was younger) and in a few cases husbands.

For me its very awkward because it is too personal. For many men when the conversation turns toward a woman's current love relationship boyfriend or husband a signal goes off telling them this woman might have an interest.

Men do instinctively get a funny feeling when women share deep personal thoughts with them. Those with good intentions and strong values tend to put boundaries. Those with good intentions and lower values don't and the risk of EA to PA increases based on how the woman acts in the futrue.

Those with bad intentions see an opportunity and the game is afoot to draw the "friend" into something more.

I made my wife tell the OM goodbye in person on tape. He had no idea he was being recorded. He went into this thing about how sorry he was things were bad at her home. And then the line that I had to laugh at (though at that time I didn't know the length or depth of the affair) was "that's what you get for trying to love your friends and helping them out."

The first day after discovery her told my wife (so she tells me) "well we are just friends do you want me to talk to him and tell him that?"

I am sort of reminded of Meg Ryans and Billy Crystal bantor in "When Harry Met Sally".

Trust us Billy Crystals (men) do instinctly become more sexual the closer the emotional ties to a female even when in the guise of friendship. Some men have the character to recognize that and maintain a safe distance.

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.

jl...Oh Boy! I just love this.

sufdb...yeah, me too, and a topic I can't step on as many toes as usual (hopefully)....I have some opinions for later, but you said something often presented in the way you did that I sorta disagree with.

jl... Now I will make a "generalization" which I KNOW TO BE CORRECT. Men, are driven by sexual thoughts. Want data look up the research. In one paper I have read the claim was the men think about sex about every 10 seconds.

sufdb...This is just data, saying driven (your usage implying primarily) draws a conclusion that the primary motivator for male behaviour is sexual in nature. Depends on what you mean by that.....cause in "general" the primary motivator for all human activity is probably sexual...why? Cause if it weren't we wouldn't have survived to have this conversation. But even this is a bit murky without other data. You being a math and logic guy can appreciate we would need to quantify the energy output (of all kinds) of males (and/or females) they assess how much of it is devoted to various fundamental activities....for example, we might find we actually expend more energy feeding ourselves, or engaging in dominance activities (non-sexual ones)...I dunno.

But I am willing to hazard a guess that the greatest single energy expenditure for both males and females is in pursuit of mating opportunities....ie sex. However, if this is true, it is not only general, it defines being a human being (and probably every other lifeform on the planet as well)....and as such becomes a meaningless statement, might as well say males are males cause they um....all have red blood....but that begs the observation so do females, even though the blood of males and females is different.

My point is that driven by sex is a meaningless consideration, because it is an inherentcy in being human, and is allready taken into consideration in every choice every female or male makes. But the manifestation of these choices includes a complex array of outcomes which are "driven" by the particular female/male interaction at hand....which I think is the point ark has been trying to make.

My discomfort over using the data you referred to (and I agree with the data), is it skews the argument away from the premise, are women naive....no they are not. They have had hundreds of thousands of years to be fine tuned for their role in our species sexual dance. It also reduces men down to a kind of naievty as well, that somehow males shouldn't be sexual pursuers, but most of them don't realize it and can't help themselves. IMO the issue is should males and females seek opposite gender relationships other than sexual, can they do so, and how do they do so.

hey, ark, I pretty much agree with your positions, and intend to post some thoughts about friendships. Sorry mel, I disagee with your generalization as well, although I admire your eloquent defense of same. As for the side issue conflict over who means what etc. (which always seems inevitiable)....BORING I don't really much care whose feelings are hurt, or what the original poster supposedly meant or not, or whether someone was grouchy....this is a discussion, no ones life is on the line (like with other stuff here), so let every post simply be commented on re content....not tone...sheesh. Why do people constantly want to make discussions personal, danged if I will ever understand that....guess I must be defensively challenged or something, and can't percieve a need to respond (in tit for tat) to non-content items.

What possible contribution to the discussion is accomplished by say...un noting some poster is grouchy? Who cares, let's comment on what he said....likewise, what possible contribution is made by the "grouch" taking issue with being called grouchy? Ignore that, and respond to the content (if any), likewise the byzantine irritation the original poster seems to have with ark (which I confess I don't even understand)...ok, off my soapbox, just felt a need to lobby for more content and less personal bs (and I don't mean betrayed).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

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".

<hr /></blockquote>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" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pepperband:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />

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".

<hr /></blockquote>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" /> <hr /></blockquote>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.

[ November 01, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr />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]<hr /></blockquote>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:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />.....just another manifestation of the consequences of giving women shoes, letting them out of the kitchen, and more reproductive control.<hr /></blockquote>wow, you yankee men let your women wear shoes? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

[ November 01, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]

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

[ November 01, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: OtG ]

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