Personality Cafe banner

141 - 160 of 199 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Every guy I've talked to and made good friends with has always ended up wanting something more, sex or a relationship. Even if we are not compatible at all. So you tell me

Perhaps they have been very lonely. So it definitely depends on the person and their level of independence.
And it boils down to men and women being different - something that your not allowed to say today - but it's pretty damn obvious that it's the case. I've just finished doing a training course for work which pretty much says men and women think differently. It's just fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
And it boils down to men and women being different - something that your not allowed to say today - but it's pretty damn obvious that it's the case. I've just finished doing a training course for work which pretty much says men and women think differently. It's just fact.
Lol, facts, every human is different and no, men and women do not think differently because of their biology, it has a very small causality. Culture influences far more, so unless a culture distinguish men and women based on their genitals, there're no reasons that men and women think differently. Being a man is a different culture, than being a woman, it's another, this isn't brain structure being different because of your genitals or hormones.

Also, some of you speak like there're only hetero people, our sexual attraction (or its absence) definitely influences how we see relationships, as well as our romantic attraction (or its absence). But as far as I'm concerned, we didn't began to consider that homosexuals had to be more friendly with another gender of their own because of their homosexuality. But somehow, this has to be considered when we speak of hetero ("naturally" being more friend with the people of the same gender). But actually, the problem is just hetero men who have been taught to take any opportunity to speak with a girl to try if they can't also have sex.

Basically, because I already said it before on this thread, this is just rape culture showing up. If you always take time to consider people in front of you as individuals, not object, you would more or less explicitly help eachother to express freely consent to get eventually further than just friendly chitchat. Without manipulation, or "strategies", to bypass clear explicit consent, and after you tried to get an explicit consent, if the answer is "no", then stop it and consider friendship or leave, in the case if you were only looking for sex. Of course, if you're most of the time always on the mode: "If I try to build friendship with someone of another gender, it's for sex, otherwise, no point in trying." Well, no surprise people begin to ask themselves this question, but the problem doesn't come from biology but our culture of gender as opposite, and one imposing their desire more than the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
No. It's biological. I've just finished my "Motivating Boys in Early Years" course for work and it said in black and white that we think different and there is a biological difference. You might want us to be the same, but we're not and I'll stand by that, no matter what you say.
 

·
Registered
INFJ less than 1%
Joined
·
6,996 Posts
And it boils down to men and women being different - something that your not allowed to say today - but it's pretty damn obvious that it's the case. I've just finished doing a training course for work which pretty much says men and women think differently. It's just fact.
I might be biased but men seem worse at keeping relationships platonic. I've noticed the same with how men act with my mum as well, they always wanted more from her no matter how many times she said she wasn't interested. And it could be how the "friendzone" came up - why do only guys use this term?

However my bf does have female friends that he has always just been friends with. That's why I say it depends on the person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
No. It's biological. I've just finished my "Motivating Boys in Early Years" course for work and it said in black and white that we think different and there is a biological difference. You might want us to be the same, but we're not and I'll stand by that, no matter what you say.
I'm trans, I have been educated as a man, my culture is the one of men, I acted for years as a man. I never had the possibility to explicit what was going in my head as men tend to be cold and hide their emotions, and I did the same until it was unbearable and I was ready to hatch.

I'm far more confident now as I identify mostly as a woman, but I still look definitly like a man. Now men avoid me even more than before, only women come to me to speak and are really friendly, men tend to rationalise what I'm living, asking questions I don't have answers to, while women listen to me and are compassionate, we speak of other things. On the other hand, men just don't want to casually speak with me, my transidentity is a barrier for most of them.

I have a lot to learn about women culture, there's so much things I still don't know, and it's not that different, but still it feels like it's another world sometimes. Everyone has this possibility to act like all those women who accepted me for who I'm, but I have been taught to reject that kind of behaviour and I see the same education as I had, on the side of men, because I've been assigned boy at birth. So no, definitely, this isn't just biological, and a lot of studies show that, not just my personal experience, even if I have this kind of priviledged point of view on gender and sex as I'm going from one side to another.

And your course for work is ideological, that's what it is. You can believe it that what they teach you is true, but I don't, cause I have every reason not to, wether my personal experience, or gender studies.

Also, I'm lesbian, and god I don't want to be with cis men, I have already my brother and that's enough for me. Also, my best friend, is a guy, but he definitely don't behave like most men I had to encounter during my life, he's so understanding towards me and not judgmental at all, unlike 95% of men I encountered in my life, they taught me to be homophobic and anti-feminist those bastards, they made me suffer for so long.

I don't want us to be the same, I want men to stop being dumb, that's what I want. We're all different, and that's a good thing, but why do we teach such bad behaviour to men?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Lol, facts, every human is different and no, men and women do not think differently because of their biology, it has a very small causality. Culture influences far more, so unless a culture distinguish men and women based on their genitals, there're no reasons that men and women think differently. Being a man is a different culture, than being a woman, it's another, this isn't brain structure being different because of your genitals or hormones.
How do you explain differences in behaviour between the sexes in the animal kingdom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAVIE

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
How do you explain differences in behaviour between the sexes in the animal kingdom?
I'm not ethologist, neither biologist. What I can say is that we have first to differentiate animals who can develop social behaviours and culture from the ones who cannot.

For the one lacking sympathy and cognitive empathy, biology will be your best bet on every causality that influence dichotomic behaviours between sex. But we've already to be aware that hierarchies, like the ones in ants, have its causes, which come from other biological origins that will determine an individual, than to be one sex and its inherent behaviour, or the other sex and it's inherent behaviour. Also, there're species who have more than two sex... somehow... but those are exceptions.

When we speak of social behaviours we could speak of primates for example. So apes, like gorillas, developed a patriarcal form of society like some of human societies, in opposition to bonobo, who developed something more equalitarian, even matriarchal, and as funny as it sounds, the conflicts are resolved through sex. We observed also specific behaviours among apes which depend of the environnement without having anything related to genes, that's where we speak of culture for non-human animals.

The logic of males fighting for females, is a behaviour important in times of stress for a species, and definitely the dichotomy between both sex explain why its constantly the male, the ones who have small eggs (sperm) and waste near to no energy in the participation of the reproduction akin to a parasitic role. It definitely allows them to enter competitive roles within the group, within the species and/or against predators. Something also important is that there's the need, in this logic, that the feature of great competitor are actually transmitted through the reproduction.

A great competitor doesn't create only great competitors as children, the genetic of the female is important also, and there's a limit to the strengh and the aggressivness that an animal can have. Also, we have to notice the perverse effect of such organisation which goes beyond the social species. In lack of predators, the competitors will begin infights within the group, risking its own life in its will to have the monopoly on females, making them weaker in case of reappearance of a predator, but there's a moment where having stronger and more aggressiv breed doesn't really serve the species, actually they kill themselves. And that's where some social, or proto-social behaviour can begin to take place. Also remember that natural selection has no goals or intentions, survival of the fittest is a mechanical thing, not a teleological one.

For example, the fact that gorillas and other great primates, have no hair around the mouth and the eyes allow them to more easily distinguish different emotions that an ape get through. Basically the organisation stop to be purely linked to manifestation of strengh through a very diverse set of means, but to emotions instilling some sort of fear, or tranquility, or happiness, or saddness. It can give power to an individual who can play and manage the group through the perception of those emotions. This is social organisation, emotions, what bonobo do a lot more than any other ape species because they abandonned the hierarchies based on physical strengh.

Obviously some species are mixed, like humans, in their use of physical and what we can call spiritual (or emotional) strengh. Then, what becomes interesting is the persistence of behaviours which does look like excessive compared to the level of stress induced by the environnement, wether predators or natural scarcity in ressources. The reason is something along the lines of that natural selection, and the transformation it causes, only work when the species is under stress, and unless the species goes under stress, the excessively violent behaviour within the group won't change, no natural selection. But like stated before, those moment of stress increase further this "patriarcal" organisation. So basically, what's happening is that, from the moment that the group doesn't come extinct because of the excess of violence, as such not an external cause of stress within the species, but an internal cause of stress on mortality, the species will have not much incentive to change its behaviour. Still, this doesn't mean that a species cannot change its behaviour, but it's unlikely that it will do so.

Unless there're emotions, which give to an individual a whole new set of strategies, not remplacement of the leader through physical violence, but subversion of the organisation by playing on emotions and trust. We already know that gorilla leader play on physical power and emotional power, in other words: trust. But until a species, or a group within one species, completely subvert the social organisation until no physical power is at play, good luck. But there're the bonobos who did that, why? I don't know.

That's where humans enter the game, we not only are more efficient in conveying emotions, we have cognitive empathy, the possibility to simulate in our head what another individual is experiencing, it's sympathy, but further. This is what incentivise humans to put a lot of energy on education and transmission of knowledge, beyond every other species, who are most of the time lazy in the education they give. We went as far as genetically losing our ability to move and eat properly from our birth, something most species are able to. Does this mean that we'll get less patriarcal organisations throughout the species? No, of course not, but it means that we may move from more equalitarian to more hierarchical organisation far more rapidly than any other great primates, not only that, but those hierarchies have even more chances to not rely that much on a sexual dichotomy, that the more "parasitic" role of the male stop to matter a lot in the construction of hierarchies. There will be always an incentive in that direction, but very little. It stops to be biological, but mostly social.

Basically we're not the smartest species, we're not the strongest, we're the most adaptive in our transformation of social organisation. Now why being stuck on more patriarcal system? Or why partriarchy is still there? I'll not answer that question here, and I don't know if I could do it, but I want to speak of something quite important, but a little bit parallel to that question.

20'000 years old skeletons of humans show that there were near to no differences of height and physical strengh between male and female. And that a big stress, from starvation to diseases, hit hard the human species when we went from nomadic and semi-nomadic to more sedentary organisation, and women took their toll in the social selection of them. Being smaller for a female compared to the male, increase the chances of complications when giving birth, it increases the mortality of the mother and the child. So it had to happen that the external stress on mortality was stronger that the stress coming from a selection of smaller and smaller females. It's an hypothesis, and we still don't have many traces that such thing happened, but it's coherent.

So definitely, anyway, there're no reason now, as we're our only cause of stress on mortality. Climate change is caused by human, and the spreading of the current pandemic is partially caused by us because we decided to decrease the importance of social incentive coming from experts to be prepared to such case of pandemic. Basically, the logic of capitalism isn't to invest in pandemic preparation which are based on contingent events, it doesn't like to invest in political revolution either, capitalism hate contingent events. And long-term investement like its required for climate change. So we can virtually be willing to change our social organisations however we want, and thus, to social organisations which could lower social and political discriminations towards specific populations. To explain all this, sociology is the way to go, it's something about class struggle by the way ^^.

Here, my insight, went far beyond your question... but who cares? ^^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
Absolutely. But not every man and every woman. It just depends on the individuals. And somewhere some asexual, aromantic individual is rolling their eyes about the premise of the question totally disregarding the fact that they exist.

Also this:

Heidi Stevens said:
We can acknowledge that some men are sometimes attracted to their female friends, and some women are sometimes attracted to their male friends. (And some men are sometimes attracted to their male friends, some women to their female friends, while we're on the topic.)

We can also recognize that mature adults go through life, every single day, not acting on all our impulses. We don't eat the whole pan of brownies. We don't tell our bosses to take a flying leap. We don't order martinis at lunch. We don't sleep with our friends.
(You take that back, Heidi, sometimes mature adults DO eat the whole pan of brownies, ok?!)

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that there are some individuals who not only seem to not be able to just be friends, but also end up sleeping with whole friend groups? I've been surprised to observed this situation not just once but actually a few times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Absolutely. But not every man and every woman. It just depends on the individuals. And somewhere some asexual, aromantic individual is rolling their eyes about the premise of the question totally disregarding the fact that they exist.

Also this:



(You take that back, Heidi, sometimes mature adults DO eat the whole pan of brownies, ok?!)

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that there are some individuals who not only seem to not be able to just be friends, but also end up sleeping with whole friend groups? I've been surprised to observed this situation not just once but actually a few times.
Yes, friends with benefits....but they are not friends. They are crossing the friendship boundary lines. Normal friends don't sleep with each other. They are something else. It's Brave New World stuff. It rarely ends well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
Yes, friends with benefits....but they are not friends. They are crossing the friendship boundary lines. Normal friends don't sleep with each other. They are something else. It's Brave New World stuff. It rarely ends well.
Yes, I agree. It is really, really uncomfortable. I like to be "live and let live" generally but sliding boundaries can be unhealthy for everyone involved. I have a very kind-hearted friend (actually a friend - nothing between us) who I was surprised to discover has sort of serially done this. I have very mixed feelings. He really is a genuinely caring person. But the slide is uncomfortable and I would be hesitant to recommend him or introduce him to others knowing this pattern. I have my fingers crossed for him right now because he seems to be in a more stable relationship than usual. I think part of the problem was he was gravitating towards partners with histories of instability and deep-seated issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,850 Posts
Yes. As long as they don't have sex.
I think it's more so as long as they don't want to have sex; tension on its own can change the dynamic.
 

·
Registered
INTP or else
Joined
·
13,894 Posts
I think it's more so as long as they don't want to have sex; tension on its own can change the dynamic.
Yes. Sex is a powerful force. It's power stands right out there hard to ignore. But collectively there can be more powerful forces directed elsewhere which bury it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that there are some individuals who not only seem to not be able to just be friends, but also end up sleeping with whole friend groups? I've been surprised to observed this situation not just once but actually a few times.
Yes, friends with benefits....but they are not friends. They are crossing the friendship boundary lines. Normal friends don't sleep with each other. They are something else. It's Brave New World stuff. It rarely ends well.
I have met with such a case. Dude wanted to be with virtually every woman in his group of friends, but he did have a sixth sense for choosing them, in the sense of, if he saw you liked something from him, he'd know how to exploit it. I can't say he was insensible or anything really... but he did have a craving or issue without a doubt. Was he a sexual predator? Did he just have too much sex drive? I don't know. I think he had some issues in the family with the mother. He wanted to "charm" me as well, after being with 2 other females that I knew of (total number probably bigger) from my group of friends (he couldn't really commit as far as I knew). Another friend of mine did not accept/let him either.

Years later during uni, I happen to meet him at a club while with another friend (we haven't talked in 3 years). Right off the bat, he's "mesmerized", he ends up paying for my drinks and behaving REALLY well, like on spot, conversation, mannerism, everything. Time to go back, and I could barely make him go back on his way because I did not want sex from/with him after he stopped by my apartment claiming "he really needs to use the bathroom" (perfect stupid excuse, well not false either, but just the perfect excuse, and he was more drunk than me; his only kudos were me knowing him for years). I only offered him some food/talk or "leave". Was there sexual appeal between us? Damn yeah. But see, that's simply not how I'm geared/educated or what I like. I refused with my body, if that's how you can describe it, except that i wasn't rude or harsh, it's not hard to take someone's mind off a sexual encounter if you really don't want it, seeing how he wasn't after anything serious, or rather, knowing him to not be serious in the long run. Of course, at the moment, it was probably really serious for him, I disappointed him. I think he still has a thing for never being able to "get me". I am convinced this is exactly why he had that behavior that night. Well, that was it.

I gave him a chance to bring something better to the plate than the simple opportunity of a one-night-stand (can't promise anything more with his type and after not talking for how long?). I did feel a little bad and like I missed something that could've felt good (that specific feeling in your stomach or area), I won't lie. Of course I was tempted. But the feeling only lingered for a couple hours. If anything happened, questions, doubts or feelings would've been dragged for much longer. An emotional link forms, especially for the woman. You don't just do that kind of bullshit with someone who's more receptive/sensitive and not into one night stands or two-months-only relationships.

Some people would call me unfun. If I was more adventurous I would probably go after these, but it wasn't the first nor the last "offer" I got from a "dude"; usually when we have something to choose from, we settle for something that doesn't put our emotional backup system or energy levels on minus. I mean, well, it did put his wallet on minus, it was his very insistent choice though. I did not exercise my ability to break emotional links with people well, or to prevent myself from "feeling" them; it's never been something I liked doing. Unless I have a real reason like injury to my person (not petty bullshit) I am pretty sure I cannot do it. They will keep existing in the subconscious. Since it's already easy to fill this box, I'd rather be selective. I put my reservation under question many times, and tried to surpass it, but it just doesn't seem to be for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
If you can't, then you're lacking an ability that many others have. But it's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your quota for platonic bonding can be met by same-gender friendships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Duh of course they can he he he he. I do not crave sex or romance with any other woman apart from my SO and we all know Chesire Cats be crazy XD. On a more serious note I think even though biologically it would make sense to a degree (More romance= more babies) I don't think humans need to mindlessly breed like insects or rabbits so we can just be friends :p. Plus we are "enlgithened" beings so no need to mate away.

I have had many female friends in the past and there was no prospect of romance of any kind as we just were happy being buds no more than htat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
Sure. The issue is whether one catches feelings for the other.

There’s an innate expectation that whenever men and women become friends, eventually they’ll sleep with each other. What might be just joking banter is interpreted as sexual chemistry. In a perfect world, everyone will be honest with their feelings and objectives for the friendship. However, feelings can change and develop. Shame and fear can really endanger and even corrupt a friendship.

Personally, my friendships with guys never ended well. Some have grown interested in me, and when I rejected them, they treated me a lot differently. I once grew very interested in another guy friend, but eventually outgrew those feelings. So I was content with just being friends. But it didn’t help that he started dating someone that got really jealous whenever he so much as breathed next to another girl. I’ve since kept a lot more distance with other male friends as a result.

I’m sure more people had better experiences with this. I suppose it all depends on each individual and other extenuating circumstances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
why not? it's not completely the same with same sex friend but that's only because of general cultural stigmas i think, if both sides are relax with each other and open-minded it's exactly the same. but if one side acts awkward, it will feel weird and probably make it harder to become friends. sometimes it can change with your personality too, some people start to develop feelings after spending a lot of time together, but i don't think it's necessarily about gender. if you are pansexual, is it going to mean that you cannot be close friends anyone? i have close male friends and close female friends, it's just imposibble for me to think them in that way, it almost feels encest for me. there had been times that i liked some of my friends, but it was because of i was trying to figure out my sexuality, after opening up i became really relax with almost anyone (if they are not acting awkward near me). i guess society affects this more than we think, like as you go out with your close male friend, laughing, talkinf exc. people's look, smiles, when you go to eat something they say your ''boyfriend'', it subconsciously affects us and lead that people like you? i mean it puts a idea in your mind, then starts to think why not? i'm curious about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
There’s an innate expectation that whenever men and women become friends, eventually they’ll sleep with each other. What might be just joking banter is interpreted as sexual chemistry.
bengesserit8675309 said:
i guess society affects this more than we think, like as you go out with your close male friend, laughing, talkinf exc. people's look, smiles, when you go to eat something they say your ''boyfriend'', it subconsciously affects us and lead that people like you? i mean it puts a idea in your mind, then starts to think why not? i'm curious about that.
Ah, isn't this interesting. You know, I think I actually had an experience like this. I got to know someone and we had friendly interactions, understood each other well, spent a good bit of time together. I didn't feel like there was "magnetism", but we enjoyed each others' company. People started suggesting things to us and I started to consider. But actually, quite interestingly, at some point I ended up close to him and I didn't like his scent, and that was that. The physical attraction ceased. What romantic-ish feelings may have cropped up followed shortly thereafter.

And actually I wonder about female friendships, too, would I have considered them in a different light if they were widely modelled and accepted or even encouraged as a conduit to romance? I am thinking of a particular friend who seemed "more" to me in a way I had no notion of expressing at the time, before I understood that same-sex attraction was something that could happen.
 
141 - 160 of 199 Posts
Top