First, let utterly and absolutely reject this comment from Brian.
My first thought is that this is a very subjective theory, evidenced by your
need to clarify your upbringing before actually stating the theory.
I brought up my personal upbringing for two reasons. One, I think every theory operates better when explained in its proper context. Two, that was going to be a really short blog post without some kind of introduction.
The theory applies universally although it may apply very differently to different people. I think Michael brings up some very good points about how his family life has shaped his relationships with women over time. To Amy, I will absolutely concede that the theory is definitely dominated by a decidedly male perspective because I am hypermasculine and possess little to no understanding of what you would call the "feminine mystique." In layman's terms, I have no idea what is going on in the heads of women as clearly evidenced by my life. Thanks. I wish more women would comment to let us know how they view the theory and its operation.
The basis of my theory is rooted in the development of a friendship. This development cannot occur without inevitable romantic entanglements. Thank you to Chad for pointing this out. You are a man of great insight and scholarship.
To Amy, don't bring Jesus into this. I just don't feel like fleshing out the theology of this theory. Breaking it down and testing its metaphysical significance seems to me to do nothing but ruin its simplistic elegance. (Although, I will say please see Jesus surrounding himself most closely in the gospels with twelve men. Also see the admonitions of Paul to men to treat younger women as "sisters" and not friends. Historical arguments, even from the basis of scripture, are inherently weak because men and women did not cultivate or develop friendships in that era because it was not seen as socially acceptable.)
To Billy's objection on the basis of his friendship with Kristen. This is a case of transference. You were friends with Kristen and then you transferred her over to Clayton. Billy was the transferor. Kristen was the transferee. Now, neither of you may have been friends for the sake of an eventual transfer but one happened none the less. This speaks to one of my underlying assumptions that prop up the overall theory. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. That is why all men-women friendships will inevitably find themselves in romantic entanglements.
That last part also speaks to the post-romantic feelings friendship. Again, as Chad so astutely pointed out, by this point my theory has already been proven. Can you be friends after something not working out romantically? Possibly, but in my experience, that friendship has always had at least the slightest tinge of weirdness because of the botched romantic attempt aspect. It is better to keep these things seperate.
Let me also add one thing to the theory of transference. Another way to experience the theory of transference is to have one party or the other to a potential friendship transfer all of the traditional emotional and relationships aspects of a romantic relationship into the "friendship." If you are using a guy or girl as a boyfriend/girlfriend stand-in because you cannot exist within the confines of an actual romantic relationship, you are guilty of transference. This is a different kind of transference but still a transference. Instead of transferring people by means of your emotions, you are transferring your emotions by means of a person.
Finally, this theory does not currently apply to gays or lesbians. Although, the fact that you find people who are gay often find a disproportionate number of friends of the opposite sex may speak to the general role of gender identity when it comes to societal norms of establishing friendships. Also, the theory does not apply to "couples friends" because I have no earthly idea what that means.
Thanks for your comments. Please continue. This theory could definitely benefit from further development and particularly from a feminine perspective.
8 comments:
Brent, let me first say I am glad you recognize my genius. It feels good to be a G.
I would like to address a general concern that ran through the other comments, and that is the definition of a "friend."
How many of the people who read this comment are my friends? I probably know all of you by first and last name, know a thing or two about your interests, and perhaps another fun fact or so. I might even know what you do for a living. You could do the same with me. So is this a friend? If so, then I will disagree with Brent's theory because there are lots of girls I have as friends that I have met through school, work, etc.
However, friendships obviously can run much deeper than this. We even categorize it: acquaintance, friend, good friend, best friend, bff, etc. So what makes a good friend? Those people that know all of the basic info and then a bit more: they can name a favorite song of mine, or they can recall a funny experience we shared together. They can testify about various things I have or am struggling with. They know that I have a beast of a dog named Rocky. They could tell you the meaning of at least one of my tattoos. They know what Third Camp is. If I talked to them more often or perhaps lived closer, they would be best friends. To group them together with normal friends is an injustice.
If you apply this theory to any person in the good friend category or higher, than I would say it is true an overwhelming majority of the time, especially in the developmental stage.
Furthermore, I think this categorization takes care of the "obligatory" friendships. I am friends with girls that I work with, the girls I have met at school and church, and the girls that I know through friends. But if one of those relationships goes into "good friend" territory, go ahead and set the iPod on Usher.
"...At this point the situation's out of control
...
And she may not understand it
Why all of this is going on
I tried, I tried to fight
But the feeling's just too strong..."
One more thing:
This theory and argument is pretty airtight. Any rebuttal comment from the female side will be viewed by myself as a thinly veiled attempt to protect the commenter from letting the world know that you struck up a friendship with me because you wanted my body.
Let me also add one thing to the theory of transference. Another way to experience the theory of transference is to have one party or the other to a potential friendship transfer all of the traditional emotional and relationships aspects of a romantic relationship into the "friendship." If you are using a guy or girl as a boyfriend/girlfriend stand-in because you cannot exist within the confines of an actual romantic relationship, you are guilty of transference. This is a different kind of transference but still a transference. Instead of transferring people by means of your emotions, you are transferring your emotions by means of a person.
My argument about this theory being subjective does not deserve to be thrown out so quickly.
subjective: (1): peculiar to a particular individual (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background (3): arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
You say that its universal, but "applies differently to different people." See definition (2) above.
Also, how can a theory be universal, but completely exclude a certain group (i.e. gays and lesbians)?
I maintain my original argument. Your theory has merit, but it is subjective to one's experience and upbringing.
Subjective. Is there any theory that would be completely full proof of being labeled subjective? Just because the application of a truth or theory in this case may be different doesn't mean it is not real and accurate.
I think you have options. You either clarify the environment that you are trying to establish your specific theory in or you have to strip down your theory to use universal language so the idea is still represented but the application has a more wide reaching effect.
For example here.
Include terminology that mentions time period (1970-2009ish), people (American) etc...
OR.
Include wording that generalizes the theory. Such as not using "friends" since that might mean different things and rather using relationships.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, Brent, but I’m afraid I can’t totally agree with you. I will tell you why I can agree first, and then I will tell you why you are, in fact, wrong. Both my explanations are based on personal experiences.
In high school I became really close with a girl named Colleen. I can’t remember how or when we got close, but I know that eventually I fell in love with her. She was perfect in my mind, the sun and the moon. The more we confided in each other, the more I wanted to date her. Long story short, my romantic feelings totally trumped any thoughts of friendship. Unfortunately, Colleen jumped into a relationship before I fessed up, and I spent an entire summer crying to N’Sync’s ‘Gone.’ I admit it.
Moving on.
The following paragraph stood out in your piece:
The basis of my theory is rooted in the development of a friendship. This development cannot occur without inevitable romantic entanglements. Thank you to Chad for pointing this out. You are a man of great insight and scholarship.
False.
I’ll say it again: false. You can’t make absolute statements like this.
As many of you know, my best friend is Madison. Actually, I’ll go so far as to say that Madison is like my sister; I call other people my best friends, but my friendship with her is so long-lasting that it constitutes a different title, I guess. I confide in her, she confides in me, and we’ve been doing this for years and years now. If memory serves me correct, Madison admits she liked me for 10 seconds when were kids because we were both the Christmas trees in “The Little Christmas Tree,” but that doesn’t/can’t count.
Being at Duke now, there’s a whole new crop of people who try to figure out my friendship with her. “Dude, she’s hot! You’ve never made out with her? What? Why?” Blah, blah, blah. A few weeks ago I decided to think about all of this a little more, seeing that I’ve fallen in love/inevitably liked other girls who were my close friends.
This is my working conclusion so far:
As an adopted person, I think my definition of family is broader than most people’s. Because I’ve never been around anyone who shares my blood (NO ONE), who I consider family is a matter of the heart. It has to be. As strange as it sounds, if I don’t approach life this way than anyone is up for grabs. For instance, I have an attractive cousin named Missy. She’s my first cousin. We confide in each other. She tells me about her relationships. I tell her about mine, or lack thereof. We’re really close. Technically, and I stress TECHNICALLY, Missy and I could date. Why not? She’s not blood kin. It wouldn’t f&*k up the kids or anything. In reality, outside the fact that our parents are brother and sister, she’s really no different than Madison.
Of course that’s nasty and it would never cross my mind, but this is precisely how my friendship with Madison developed. Because she and I became close friends at an early age, and probably because my views on family are what they are, I can love her, have lots in common with her, and get this – I don’t have to worry about romantic feelings getting in the way. I think we’re proof that a guy and girl can be friends without ulterior motives or Colleen-like tendencies, even after puberty and into our adult years.
The funny thing is, Madison and I don’t have a problem with our relationship. Other people do. Other people have a hard time thinking we can be “just friends.” Other people are uncomfortable with our ability to not like each other. We are okay, though, and we know that neither of us secretly desire to jump the other one’s bones. (In fact, Madison has gone so far as to say that the thought of kissing me makes her want to vomit. I get what she means, but it’s always strange to hear that out loud.)
I realize my situation is not common for most, but I’m convinced it’s possible, even if one’s not adopted (duh!), to have a friendship with someone from the opposite sex without it leading to a romantic interest/relationship. Perhaps I’ll leave that for VZ to flesh out, or if she has time, Madison might be a guest poster for the week. At the end of the day, like many have shared already, it boils down to upbringing, experience, and how one approaches friendships.
My point: your theory can’t be right because my friendship with Madison proves it wrong. I’m not saying you don’t have valid points that aren’t true in some cases (i.e. Colleen and others), but the absoluteness of your theory is problematic.
I agree with Brent's theory.
When I first read the statement, "Men and women cannot be friends," I immediately started thinking of ways this could be disputed before reading another word. I put my guard up and didn't want to allow myself to agree, because it sounds awful. What do you mean to say? I have lots of friends that are guys! But when Brent laid out the argument, I slowly found myself shaking my head in agreement. Now that it's sunk in this week I'm comfortable saying I agree.
The definition of friend doesn't matter. The time line or order in which feelings developed doesn't matter. Other personal experience doesn't particularly matter either.
Men and women are naturally and biologically wired for intrigue in the opposite sex. No matter what you want to call it -- friendship, physical attraction, love -- men and women have chemistry. That's the way it's supposed to be. Even if you don't outwardly have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, deep down you have pheromones. Biologically you are intrigued. So, from the moment you meet someone of the opposite sex, your natural tendency is attraction. As I said, this may be just deep down and you may not realize it. It's instinctive. We're wired for it.
That explains why all of the cases you guys have presented against the theory don't refute it. Even if you didn't realize it, you were interested in the girl for the very first time -- for romance or just for "friendship" -- because you had a natural chemistry with her. Girls, this is the same for you with guys.
This fulfills the premise that men and women cannot be friends without romance ever being involved. I think transference takes care of everything else.
How are each of you gentlemen on this blog friends with me? It was either your pheromones or transference.
I was hesitant to post a comment, b/c I don't want to ruin my "Men and Women Can Be Friends" theory, but I will make these comments:
1) Billy - you so were attracted to Kristen when you were orientation leaders. I know it.
2) What the heck is transference? It seems the definition changes daily.
3) Am I to believe a theorist who blatantly panders to the "greatness" of Chad. I can only assume these comments were made in farce. Was the entire blog made in farce?
4) I like how Brian proved he was friends with a girl when he was eight, but then Brian's example was excluded as irrelevant b/c it was "pre-romantic stage." He was friends with her, therefore it can be done. Theory refuted. Unless I missed the fine print after the "Men and women can't be friends" title. Oh I know, I am misconstruing the theory. I'll guess you'll have to wait for my real response.
5) I really hope there is a good summing up paragraph from Brent b/c right now his theory seems like: i'm not even sure what it seems like.
Post a Comment