roberta (02/28/83)
Quote from a recent submission from anton aylward about "a group of girls I spent a lot of time with when I was at college": I never dreamt of making any advances towards them - damnitall, they were, and still are although we are now scattered over the globe, friends. Does anyone but me find that profoundly saddening? It says to me that sexual advances are not something one does to friends, only to -- victims? targets? prey? There can be a lot of comfort and warmth and pleasure in sexual closeness between people who like each other. Is male sexuality such a ravening hunger that men can only think in terms of sating it and not of offering it as a gift? Of course there are a lot of hooks and traps baited by women offering themselves, maybe he's right, and you can't maintain the pleasures of friendship once sex is involved. Thoughts? Experiences? Roberta Taussig Tektronix
gnu (03/08/83)
Roberta Taussig was sad that Anton Aylward (and, by extension, other men) would not offer sexual closeness to some of his female friends. My own experience is that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't -- but sometimes when it doesn't you are left without a friend. It seems to me that we've all been taught that sex is such a Big Deal (be it a positive or negative Deal) that when sex comes into the picture with someone we care about as a friend, the relationship can change in un-nice ways. I've avoided sexual things with friends because I'd rather keep the friendship going strong than risk it for some (small amount of) additional closeness gained by sex. Part of the problem here for men, in particular, is that "offering sexual closeness" to a woman is quite often not an acceptable thing to do. Why didn't any of Anton's female friends offer sex to him? Putting the man in the role of having sexual closeness offerred is pretty unusual (and nice), especially from close friends. I don't know if in general men deal with having to say "yes or no" better than women, but at least they don't have to fight their way thru fears about having it forced on them, being thought of as "loose", and all the other garbage we throw at women. John Gilmore, Sun Microsystems
Lloyd (03/09/83)
Unfortunately, sex and/or its enjoyment (lets not get bogged down in semantics) falls into two broadly based categories; namely, gratuitous and intimate. The former is usually considered to have selfish motives while the latter tends to be reserved for the "closest" and therefore the "most intimate" of friendships Given this premise, the suggestion of sexual activity from either sex attempts to move the relationship to one or the other categories with predictable results. Lloyd
glaser (03/10/83)
Lloyd claims that:
Unfortunately, sex and/or its enjoyment (let's not get bogged down
in semantics) falls into two broadly based categories; namely,
gratuitous and intimate. The former is usually considered to have
selfish motives while the latter tends to be reserved for the
"closest" and therefore the "most intimate" of friendships
Given this premise, the suggestion of sexual activity from either
sex attempts to move the relationship to one or the other categories
with predictable results.
I disagree strongly with this. The two categories of "gratuitous" and
"intimate" are endpoints of a continuum. Having experienced several points
along this range, I would say that it is the quality of the relationship
(both before and after things get physical) that determines the degree
to which sex is "gratuitous" or "intimate." Sure, sex complicates
relationships, but to argue that it metamorphises a relationship into
either "gratuitousness" or "intimacy" strikes me as specious and maybe
even closed-minded.
Robmeri (03/11/83)
TO: net.women RE: Friends and Lovers I thought it was about time a women's point-of-view was heard on the ref topic - so here goes. A man and woman who develop a mutual friendship and carry that friendship on to a more intimate (sexual) relationship is, I think, terrific!! As long as both parties understand and except the relationship for what it is (i.e. friends sharing dinner, conversation, sex or whatever). I think alot of the problems with these type of amicable relationships begin when one of the parties begins to want or expect more than the other is willing or ready to give. I think is it these added pressures that sometimes cause "nasty" breakups. Why can't people accept a relationship for what it is and not read more into to it than is there? The important rule here is to be straightforward in the beginning - layout some ground rules so there won't be any misunderstandings. This may sound callous, but it can keep a mutually rewarding relationship flourishing. Fortunately, most of my past friend/lover relationships, although we are nolonger lovers we have remained friends, because we were first and foremost friends. The one or two, I can think of right off hand, that I have not remain cordial with was because THEY choose not to. And I've chalked those relationships up to bad judgement on my part. (Everyone is entitled to at least one mistake.) If that person was interesting enough in the first place to attract my attention why should having sex or not having sex with each other effect what was originally the attraction? Unless sex WAS the attraction, but that's a whole different subject. Does this make sense or am I rambling? Oh well, I think I got my point across. I would like to hear some other women's opinions on this "touchy" subject. One Womans point-of-view! meri
tjl (03/11/83)
I have never been romantically or sexually involved with someone who was not already a friend. Also, they have always remained a friend after we were no longer sharing a romance. I view romantic and sexual relationships as being built on friendships. To me they has no meaning without friendship. The sexual aspects are, for me, just a way of giving to the other person (nothing more or less). This has kept my relationships constructive and my memories of the relationships are rich and powerful (on the entire happy/sad spectrum). All my friendships are still intact and I am much the happier because of this to date (I don't anticipate this changing). Has anyone else perceived things in this way? I always have (as long as I have had any interest in anything beyond friend- ship). All I can say is: Friendships should (and can) exist before, during and after romantic and sexual relationships. It's so much better that way (believe me)! Terry J. Ligocki University of Washington