I Love (I Mean Like) the Ladies

Brent’s original theory – Men and Women Can’t Be Friends has already been so completely refuted that I won’t even concern myself with that. I will simply reference Brent’s gravity analogy in his third post and say this: Brent you say your theory is like saying gravity exists and then argue it can’t be refuted by anecdotal evidence such as space travel. However, no one is arguing that “gravity” doesn’t exist. Everyone would agree that romantic feelings are very real and exist often. Your theory is that “gravity” cannot be defied, i.e. romantic feelings can never be avoided, and the anecdotal evidence clearly shows that friendships can occur b/w Opposites without romance. Blast on astronauts.

Here is my summary of how Brent’s theory is currently defined: If you are in the “romantic stage” of your life, you cannot become friends with an Opposite, without there either being some romantic impetus or some romantic feeling developing at some point in the relationship, unless you become friends through transference. With transference being defined as any other reason you would want to become friends with an Opposite (you work with them, they are friends with your significant other, they are friends with their other friends, you need someone to share emotional experiences with but are not or are incapable of being in a romantic relationship, etc, etc).

Although, I believe I could refute even this, in order to move on to what I consider more interesting discussions, I will agree with Brent, that if I have no other reason to be friends with an Opposite (no transference) and the Opposite has no other reason to be friends with me, we will not become friends without a romantic element.

So what?

That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.

I had thought that Brent’s theory might have been, and to a certain extent it probably actually is, that there can never be a relationship between Opposites that doesn’t have a romantic element. That would have been a difficult theory to refute. But even if that is taken as the theory, the question is again, so what?

That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.

Here are some of my main objections to Brent’s theories, and some of the comments.

The critique of anecdotal objections: really Brent’s whole theory is based on his own anecdotes. I am more than willing to accept that Brent has never had a friendship, as he defines it, with a girl that has not involved romantic issues. I can only also assume that for Brent any potential friendship with a girl that began because of romantic interest has been in some sense “tainted” or had the “slightest tinge of weirdness.” But that is just Brent’s own anecdotal evidence presented as empirical evidence. The only attempts at non-anecdotal analysis are really Laurie’s biological comment and Amy’s Biblical comment.

I think there is a lot of truth to Laurie’s biological argument for the subject group that Brent has limited his theory to, heterosexuals. To respond, I paraphrase some famous person, “the difference between humans and animals is that humans can control their biological desires.” For Laurie’s argument to be the end all, we would have be slaves to our biological tendencies and desires. We aren’t, or shouldn’t be. By Brent’s definition of friendship, I am friends with my mom. I probably run more important decisions and issues by her than any other person. I’m not romantically attracted to her. She’s my mom. But the same applies to my sister, or my sister-in-laws. If it was all biological, I would be male, they would be female, there would have to be romantic interest. Indeed according to Brent, his home state has many members of the same family who have given into these romantic desires. I believe that just as with Opposites within our family, we can discipline ourselves to not have romantic feelings for Opposites outside our families, or we can let our desires control us.

To summarize, I think it is pretty clear now that Opposites can be friends. I believe what is really happening is that those agreeing with Brent (and maybe Brent himself) think that you shouldn’t be friends with Opposites. They are taking his theory to another level: taking as true that Opposite friendships have or develop romantic elements, they conclude that those are always bad outside a romantic relationship, and therefore all Opposite friendships should be avoided.

To delve a little bit into Amy’s comment, I think Jesus was friends with women. The big difference between Jesus and us, is that Jesus had complete control over his desires. So he could be friends with a woman without having romantic incentives or developing romantic feelings. He proves that a friendship with an Opposite without any romantic dimension is possible. I think most people who have commented so far, believe humans aren’t capable of doing the same, and therefore need to avoid friendships with Opposites.

So what does one do?

Do you avoid building friendships with roughly half the population because you might be unable to control romantic desires that may develop?

Do you acknowledge the romantic and develop precautions to prevent acting on the romantic? What are appropriate, practical and effective precautions?

Once you are in a romantic relationship, is the only acceptable thing to never become friends with an Opposite? It seems you can’t say, well you can only becomes friends with Opposites through transference, because no matter how the relationship originates there is still the potential to develop romantic dimensions?

Is any friendship with romantic dimensions that doesn’t rise to the level of a romantic relationship, automatically inappropriate? Even if the romantic dimension is never acted on? (Let me provide a little context. Eddie is a slightly better athlete than me. Sometimes being his friend, I feel jealously that I am not as athletic as he is. Jealously is clearly not a healthy or appropriate emotion. Sometimes because I am jealous I yell at or get mad at Eddie. Because my friendship with Eddie has a inappropriate jealous dimension, should I not be Eddie’s friend?)

Should we just bury our heads in the sand and not discuss these difficult issues?

To close with a personal anecdote, I believe I have friends who are girls. There are girls other than Lindsay and my mom that I would go to talk about serious issues and who would be there to listen and provide advice. I have female friends who are better at giving advice on certain subjects, not necessarily because they are girls, but because of their individual personalities, knowledge and experiences. For example, if I had a difficult legal ethics question, I would most likely consult Kristen and she would be there to listen. I think we are friends. (Kristen, it won’t hurt my feelings if you comment that you don’t think we are friends.) And while I believe Kristen is beautiful inside and out and that Clayton will probably never fully realize how lucky he is, I am unaware of ever having a romantic feeling towards Kristen. Again, it’s irrelevant to me if I became friends with Kristen through transference, because Brent’s theory is that romance can either be the incentive or it can develop. So if Brent is right then Kristen and I must be in the Danger Zone. I don’t think we are.

I’m not saying that in Opposite friendships anything goes. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be nothing goes.

P.S. – I’m in Atlanta with Kris-I’m-More-Athletic-Than-The -Average-Obese-American-18-Year-Old-Norris.
I walk in and notice the nerf goal on his door and say, “Cool, a nerf goal.” He says, “Nerf basketball is pretty much the sport I’m best at.” Me, “How does one play nerf basketball?” Him, “It’s just HORSE.”