The Curse of Three-Dimensionality
Thursday, 6. January 2005, 05:36:50
I have decided that my physical body is an unfortunate spiritual barrier. A vehicle for the soul, like a little warm flesh glove, encapsulating me. It is this dull body which must be penetrated with music and art. It is this body where other people's bodies stop. It is where their minds stop. It isolates us from one another, it comes programmed with biological compunctions, around which we develop repressive social paradigms.Our physical bodies are (apparently) the reason why men and women cannot be friends. This is probably one of the cruelest lessons that our society has to offer us. Examined practically, it seems absurd to automatically eliminate 50% of a society as potential friends simply due to biological factors that are beyond their control. It seems silly to me, but I'm a girl. It's been suggested to me, in the conversational analysis of this very problem (by a man) that men simply don't want female friends. From what I could piece together, the logic went something like this: vapid-but-pretty girls are for sexual encounters and light companionship, other men are for friendship, and the kind of smart, pretty girl that you might see yourself being friends with is the one that you fall in love with, make into your girlfriend and guard jealously. Most men say, almost as an addendum, that they could be friends with a woman if she were physically unattractive.
And yet, perhaps the desire is not
so wrong either. We limit ourselves so much based upon these silly taboos and unnatural rules that we've imposed upon ourselves. It seems like such an unfortunate waste of our energy and our lives to cause ourselves so much grief for no reason at all. We are told to look for rule-followers in our mirrors. Like anguished ascetics, we learn to bask in self-denial; we arrogantly call ourselves "Good".
WIDGETIZE
lokutus_prime # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Dear Emily, You have mentioned a problem - or one might say a 'difference' - which seems to 'beset' men more than it 'besets' women. There is no logical reason why this should be so, except in the sense that 'attraction' to another person - and we talk here about male & female - is an amalgam of sensory perceptions of which physical desire is is a strong component. I hurriedly insert a caveat to say that not all initial desire is immediately or always 'triggered' primarily by the physical component (attraction).
From a distance, and having never met you, I am able to say that I feel an attraction to you - to your persona - because of your writing - your intellect, the 'feel' of you through your words. This type of 'attraction' manifests itself whenever I read something by someone whom I admire solely through the writing itself ( although I may never meet them, touch them &c). Of course, it is not quitethe same when I read a novel by Stephen King, for example, because then the writer and I have not shared or exchanged any views or opinions or criticism, but it is possible to be attracted to the persona, because of the pleasure the writer is providing. There is no 'physical' attraction, in either case, because both people, you and King, are unknown to me in the corporeal sense. Although if you and Stephen King were in front of me then it's perfectly rational to assume that I might be more attracted to you than to him. I am making a humorous point, but do you see what I mean? The physical aspect is a powerful component in attraction. The 'sexual imperative' is not something which some (few?, many?, most? all?,) males analyse. Not for nothing has an aphorism that "a guy thinks with his dick" entered the language. That will be seen as a sweeping statement but anecdotal stories abound, even if their provenance is uncertain.
When you say "It's been suggested to me, in the conversational analysis of this very problem (by a man) that men simply don't want female friends" you are receiving a statement which is largely, but not always, true. Women are 'comfortable' with each others' company. They are able to confide in each other, to reveal things which they feel will never be repeated. Women are 'best friends' to each other in a way which men cannot begin to comprehend. Their relationships are often stronger, often a longer lasting bond of friendship. Their emotions are deeper and 'trust' is an essential part of such friendships, but if trust is damaged or the friendship broken then the severance can be severe, can sometimes be permanent. Men can and obviously do form friendships with their male friends but the emotional factor - the 'bonds' are not the same as women's. In general, men do not feel 'threatened' by other men. Each male initially strives - though he might not be aware of this - to be 'alpha' in his circle, but finds his 'place' and fits in with his comrades almost without noticing the action.
Now I come to those points where you say:
" From what I could piece together, the logic went something like this: vapid-but-pretty girls are for sexual encounters and light companionship, other men are for friendship, and the kind of smart, pretty girl that you might see yourself being friends with is the one that you fall in love with, make into your girlfriend and guard jealously. Most men say, almost as an addendum, that they could be friends with a woman if she were physically unattractive."
There is evidence to suggest that some (most?) men find strong-minded intelligent, witty, educated, informed, intellectual girls a 'threat'. It challenges their own, perceived, capability. It' undermines' their latent 'male need' to be in control - to be 'Alpha'. If at the same time the woman is also 'pretty' or 'beautiful', in the conventional sense of those terms, then the male may feel even more 'uneasy - less inclined -' to have just a platonic relationship, particularly if there is no real chance of ever getting the female into bed. But if the chemistry of 'love' happens, despite such a 'barrier' then everything changes.
I agree with you that "We limit ourselves so much based upon these silly taboos and unnatural rules that we've imposed upon ourselves. It seems like such an unfortunate waste of our energy and our lives to cause ourselves so much grief for no reason at all." Unfortunately evolution (of the species) plays a strong card in all of these things. It is not the only, the exclusive, arbiter because we all have the capacity to change things. There are exceptions to every so-called 'rule' or 'type'. It is hard to find situations/relationships where what you have so eloquently described is not the 'norm', but in the whole scheme of our environment they must exist somewhere. I hope you come across such examples. Friendships are important and, in my reasoning, should not be qualified by whether one is male or female. But until some men are able to come to terms with this I'm afraid the attitudes you mention (in your examples) will continue in some places. Reading between the lines I infer that you are physically 'attractive' but that you want a relationship (sometimes or in specific circumstances) where you can be simply be the person you are and be friends with a man or men in an uncomplicated, normal manner, i.e. "a friend to friend".
~~lokutus
Emily # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Okay. I'm alright. I think I know the kind of "attraction" you're talking about, the simple, effusive liking of another individual because of the way they think, and because of your reaction to the way they think via personal chemistry. This is how I feel toward all human beings whom I
I saw the movie Kinsey a few months ago, and I can't stop thinking about it, and how much grief people cause themselves over something so completely natural and good. It really is a regrettable error in the evolution of our society, I think. Why, look how much time I've wasted just considering it!
lokutus_prime # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Emily, I too read Stephen King - have a library of his books - and many other writers you may not consciously associate me with. In my early manhood I was a voracious reader of 'The Dark Arts', as depicted in fiction, but also elsewhere, in the biography of Aleister Crowley for example. I have ever sought out knowledge for its own sake and continue so to do. But it's good to know I made you breathless.
It's funny you should mention Kinsey. I was doing some research earlier to-day (my time) and, among other sourcees, had a look at the following site :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey. One of (some might say the 'main') Kinsey's detractors is Judith A Reisman. I first looked at Kinsey (and his famous report) some years ago when I was studying a 'Humanities' project. I don't say I am in support of or against Judith A Reisman, of course - anyone with any sort of 'aggresive agenda' will eventually be challenged themselves, in the worldly scheme of things -but it's always interesting to see the 'how' and the 'why' of these matters when they come under the 'purview', the agenda, of someone else, particularly if that person is part of an influential (to some) organisation that operates under the title of "RSVPA" (Restore Sexual Virtue and Purity to America). That title alone may give one an idea of what is not permissable in their eyes. I may be mistaken but I would think they are hardly likely to be democrats or 'liberals' to use a term which I understand is more used as a perjorative expression by neo-cons, and others, these days. in your country.
Peace Emily,
lokutus~
lokutus_prime # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Quentin S Crisp # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Not that there's no difference between men and women. I think the number of men who would complain about women only liking them for their bodies is significantly lower than the other way around, for instance.
But that old Hollywood screen kiss over which the words 'The End' are always superimposed is really just too corny now. The end - exactly! It's over. It's time for something else. Reminds me of a line from Burroughs:
Oh God! There they go again, the salmon leaping up the river to spawn and die. How tiresome of them!
Sorry... It's just that when men express the kind of sentiments as those expressed by your interlocutor, I really want to say, "Speak for yourself."
Emily # 6. January 2005, 05:36
It is a rather tiresome idea, the leaping and spawning and all that. But I don't see any way around it. Because despite what you might think, some of the men who are firm supporters of the men-and-women-can't-be-friends-unless-the woman-is-ugly theory are intelligent, articulate, thinking individuals (or I would not have sought them out for friendship or conversation in the first place). And really, to be quite honest, I've seen little evidence to the contrary, as gruesome as that may be. People are either unwilling or unable to rise above their biology and endeavor into a relationship with another human being that might possibly be more fulfilling than one which our bodies tell us is the "meaning of life" in a kind of Cro-Magnon way.
But I'm not exactly "bashing" sex, either, even though that's what it seems like I'm doing. It's just that there are so many factors contributuing to what I see as a rather large and unfortunate problem in today's society. Sex, I don't think, is the problem. It is our attitude about sex, and the way we prevent our "significant others" from interacting with people of the opposite sex because it is not considered "appropriate" and because we are worried (perhaps rightfully) that such friendships will lead to infidelity. But the whole notion of fidelity is kind of a silly thing too. It seems designed only with the idea of lineage in mind. Q, when you said we were still living in the Victorian era, you were kind of right I think. Only, were are really just still living in the same stupid era we've always been living in ever since man developed Civilization - The Age of Ignorance.
Quentin S Crisp # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Allow me to quote your own paraphrasing of your friend (by the way, if he is your friend his argument is immediately invalid):
From what I could piece together, the logic went something like this: vapid-but-pretty girls are for sexual encounters and light companionship, other men are for friendship, and the kind of smart, pretty girl that you might see yourself being friends with is the one that you fall in love with, make into your girlfriend and guard jealously. Most men say, almost as an addendum, that they could be friends with a woman if she were physically unattractive.
There is one very glaring flaw in this logic - Are smart pretty girls really in such short supply that every one you meet you will feel the need to make into your life partner? It just doesn't ring true to me. I think we can relax at least a little bit more than that. I do think that different-sex friendships tend to have a different quality about them to same-sex friendships, but the notion that the former don't exist is simply not true, and most people who survive adolescence and live on into their late twenties and thirties will be able to tell you this. Or at least, I would have thought so.
It can't be just me.
Emily # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Yes, I think it's ridiculous too, but everyone I seem to talk to agrees when I suggest this theory. I'm conducting kind of an informal study now, asking different men their opinion on this issue. But perhaps I've been going about it the wrong way. Perhaps suggesting this idea is somehow leading them to consider it as the only possibility because, heretofore, it is the only one they've experienced. Admittedly, not all the men I have questioned have postulated this theory on their own. Perhaps I should also ask, "or do you think it is possible for men and women to supercede their exterior identities and endeavor into a genuine and spiritual friendship?" We might have to wait until after we're dead for that though. I'm sorta leaning with all the guys. I think sex is just figures into the equation.
However, people seem to assume that there is friendship, and there is sex, and never the twain shall meet. And, of all our taboos, this seems to be the strangest. There really seems to be no reason I can think of why you wouldn't prefer to sleep with your friends, provided you were functioning in a society where taboos regarding monogamy (as such) were lifted. Perhaps sex would be a great fortifier of friendships. Sex has been given a very bad rap, when really, only good things come of it.
But you touched on something in your comment-before-last about Hollywood, and the will-they-or-won't-they? screen kiss anticipation we are taught to savor through the media. It drives a chasm right through the middle of humanity, this idea that we cannot unite commonly, men and women as strong friends. Call me kook, or a conspiracy theorist, but I see what has been a great tool to keep us weak. We are allowed only one strong bond. We stay loose and scattered, like little metal circles that never made a chain.
Jon # 6. January 2005, 05:36
You underestimate the power of sex. I mean its real power. It is the most powerful biological invention of all time. In the coming century, as man unlocks the secrets of genetics, the power will be more and more apparent to evey person on the planet. From that point of view, you are treating sex as a plaything to be shared with all your friends. The hippy movement pretty well burned that idea out in the 60's. HIV put the stop to it in the 80's.
And from another point of view you are not considering the wide variety of sexuality found in humans both physically and emotionally, including persons with both types of sexual aparatus and people with same sex orientations.
Lastly, I would point out the usefulness of taboos which you show disdain for. Taboos are an ancient way of transmitting knowledge. I believe in the correctness of the taboo against father/daughter or mother/son unions. If sex is just a toy between friends, then there would not be this taboo.
Sex is a wonderful and powerful bond between friends. It is a terrible cruel bond between people who are not friends. To talk about it the way you are here is a form of flirtation via blog. ;-)
Emily # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Thank you for responding. It is interesting (but not exactly surprising) that you would interpret this thread as "flirtation". I find that this is often the case whenever a woman reveals that her ideas about sexuality differ from what is considered to be "mainstream". While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, I would suggest that my flirtation here is only with ideas, as I attempt to dismantle and examine what I have determined to be a particularly troubling and unfortunate problem for society. The problem is that men and women seem to be unable to be friends (real friends) in our society because of sex. Since we've been taught all our lives that we aren't supposed to have sex with our friends, (or anyone accept one government- or church-sanctioned person) we prevent ourselves from developing platonic relationships with other people toward whom we sense we might eventually have a sexual attraction, because of the social problems we allow it to cause. I was proposing that in doing this, I think we rob ourselves of some potentially important and meaningful friendships. This is the point that I rather think you have missed.
I was not advocating the treatment of "sex as a plaything to be shared with all your friends" and I certainly wasn't suggesting incest, or that people behave in a reckless way that endanger their health. I was, however, postulating the idea that monogamy is one sexual "rule" that might deserve a little reconsideration. There seems to be no "happy medium" for most people in this arena. People seem to think that the very fabric of society is woven with fibers of "monogamy".
I did not address issues about the possibility of platonic friendships between homosexual people or include people with sexual/chromosomal differences because I think it is primarily a heterosexual issue, though it does raise some mildly interesting questions. My real interest is to examine society and all the ways we unthinkingly limit ourselves simply because we feel bound to follow a code that has been handed down to us for generations by a failing system. You assume much when you accuse me of underestimating the "real power" of sex. Because your elaboration included only a vague allusion to the future and to genetics, I have no choice but to make assumptions also, and can only imagine that you are referring to some scientifically-enhanced procreative power. But I'm not foolish enough to argue an assumption- I will only say that sex is also an excellent tool for spiritual enrichment and Enlightenment.
I agree with you when you say that "sex is a wonderful and powerful bond between friends" and a "terrible cruel bond between people who are not friends" (which really implies an abuse of power, not of sex). The point I was making was not that people should have casual sex with all their friends, but that sex between people who share a bond of friendship is probably better and more spirtually fulfilling than sex with a random stranger. And it might even be a healthy and powerful way to enhance the friendship. It was an idea, not a prescription, and certainly one that, if found too distasteful, can be escaped from by crawling back inside your neatly-organized, pre-packed Moral Code.
Peace.
lokutus_prime # 6. January 2005, 05:36
Bravo!
Peace,
lokutus~~