What the hell? Are you seriously implying that most men are raging horn-dogs?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Can men and women be "just friends"?
- Thread starter Rookje
- Start date
- Status
What the hell? Are you seriously implying that most men are raging horn-dogs?
Wow
HarryHengst
Member
Hahaha, what the hell. And men wonder why women find a lot of men creepy fuckers.
It's not about mysogyny, bro, it's about natural tendencies. It may be a truth that isn't nice or convenient, but it's the truth.
Somehow, I don't think that the need to sleep with every attractive women is natural. Especially since humans have larger frontal cortexes.
This question was posed in the Girl-GAF thread. I used to think guys and girls couldn't be friends if they were attracted to each other. Now that I'm in my mid-30's, I've seen the light and have many female friends who are attractive who I have no desire to have sex with.
I put them in the friend zone and I'm happy with the arrangement because 1) I already have a gf who takes care of my needs 2) I value their friendship/female advice, social proof when we go out, and introduction to their social circle.
If I were single, I don't think I'd want to have sex with any of them because it could ruin the friendship, which is genuine. Also, it is a lot safer to meet a new girl while going out with my female friends, and then there's nothing to lose, compared to ruining a friendship or souring your standing in an entire social circle.
I put them in the friend zone and I'm happy with the arrangement because 1) I already have a gf who takes care of my needs 2) I value their friendship/female advice, social proof when we go out, and introduction to their social circle.
If I were single, I don't think I'd want to have sex with any of them because it could ruin the friendship, which is genuine. Also, it is a lot safer to meet a new girl while going out with my female friends, and then there's nothing to lose, compared to ruining a friendship or souring your standing in an entire social circle.
HarryHengst
Member
No, you are just a creepy fucker if you act and think like that. That may be inconvenient, but it's the truth.
Read more carefully. RECEPTIVE sexual partners.
edit: The Coolidge effect also doesn't have a separate control for psychological effects, either.
How about the other party? By that I mean, YOU can be just friends with the opposite sex. Is the other "just friends" with you? I'm going to assume the percentage of humans that would tell the other they have some feelings in rather low. Therefore, there is a aspect of unknowing what your friend truly feels.
We don't belong on this Earth. The concept of friendship is otherworldly.
We don't belong on this Earth. The concept of friendship is otherworldly.
More complex social mores are as much a part of the natural human condition as the 'animalistic' male sex instinct which has, in this thread, been likened to a polar bear eating a rival's offspring. Lasting interpersonal relationships and cooperation are our species' primary survival mechanism, and the reason for our dominance amongst mammals. I needn't say that individually a human is rather helpless against many more 'primitive' animals; it is only through the sum of all human progress (technology) - the work of thousands, not one - that we prevail. Resorting to idiotic appeals to 'nature' to justify misogynistic distortions of humanity is nothing but a rather pathetic attempt to cover up distasteful individual inclinations.
Or, in other words, confirmation bias.
It's discussing the physical refractory period of actual intercourse while the topic being discussed is the 'desire' to participate in such actions. Such desires would precede any actual act and in human beings incorporate potentiality for such receptiveness. This is where the advanced human brain idea falls short. Unlike other animals that may need to respond to physical cues, human beings can estimate and fantasize on potentiality.
You just shot down your own point, by the way.
PS. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033290907633693
a Master Ninja
Member
That's biology for you.
Count Dookkake
Member
Dude, we get three holes. It's cool.
Mystic Theurge
Member
Course they fucking can. Surprised at all the people in here saying no. It's like some people are rabid un-intellectual beasts or something that they can't not want to fuck every female in sight or befriended. Clearly some in here missed the boat on socially implemented moral construct and decided instead to opt for their more basic, un-civilised, biologically baron, animalistic or more barbaric virtues.
It mildly angers me when people always use "biology" to excuse morally inept idiocy. As if they can't see that the entire human race has immeasurably evolved in being able to add intellect to break away from basic, oft incompatible, non-progressive, damaging or destructive instinct or biology.
It mildly angers me when people always use "biology" to excuse morally inept idiocy. As if they can't see that the entire human race has immeasurably evolved in being able to add intellect to break away from basic, oft incompatible, non-progressive, damaging or destructive instinct or biology.
Nadir of the thread.
How have I shot down my own point? There is nothing in that abstract that would indicate thus. My point is that there is a biological impetus that underscores humans, this exists no matter how lofty people think humans are because of socialization.
It's only through socialization that we improve on that biological framework, but that is still there just muted by enculturation. Since it's unethical to test it on children, we can still see in cases of feral children that without enculturation, human beings are fairly crude animals who are actually handicapped and incapable of learning language on their own. This is you, me, Stephen Hawking and the Buddhist monk who spends all his time in meditation to achieve absolute self-control.
With enculturation, humans retain various ranges of control and this control is so tenuous, we have a legal system that predicates its legal position on whether an actual loss of control exists. The animal is less guilty than the controlled being.
What I dislike seeing is a judgmental whitewashing of human nature with some sort of Puritanical view of it, because it clearly does away with how important socialization is and what should or ought to be done to deal with certain expressions. Expressions being the key word because feelings and desires that don't actually lead to expressions are not and should not be an issue.
If there is an issue to you (and from this point I'm using the plural 'you'), and there would be if the individuals saying 'No' indicate, it should be because you are aware of the potentiality for predilections, accept that it is currently part of a range of expressions, and you try to form ways where you can sociologically speaking, achieve what you want. Ignoring its existence and then vilifying expressions that are going to exist as a part of the conventional social formula will get people nowhere. Shaming people will not work.
You can feel better about yourself in comparison to 'those people', but ultimately you become an enabler of its perpetuation.
Of course... is it really a question that has to be asked?
The objectifying of women can get really out of control at times. I guess we need another Dragona to balance it out.
jim-jam bongs
Member
This thread was in equal parts edifying and mortifying.
It's not even objectification, it's just a shocking and disturbing level of cluelessness.
It's not even objectification, it's just a shocking and disturbing level of cluelessness.
Parallax
best seen in the classic "Shadow of the Beast"
In a way, I wish that dragona would come back so people would stop begging for her return. I'm really tired of hearing people clamor for her like she's some beacon of equality.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Yeah but we get two and we're better at both! WACHA!!!
that's a karate sound effect i guess
AdventureRacing
Member
I have female friends so yeah i guess so.
Devolution
Member
My best friend is a guy. =)
Sounds like marriage to me.
BoobPhysics101
Banned
Is Dragona the one who shared her account with her significant other and they'd both just randomly ban people for fun? Aren't like 80% of the banned people in old NPD threads banned because Dragona wanted to ban them, just 'cause?
ZephyrFate
Banned
You need to fuck him, obviously. This is not possible according to manchild GAF.
Re: Dragona, she didn't do half the shit GAF blames her for.
Discotheque
Banned
yes, I have a couple of friends who are girls (some very attractive, some not as) and it definitely helps..er..initiating contact with other girls for relationships and shiiit.
That applies to pretty much every girl, not just girls who aren't friends.
dragonlife
Member
Indeed. He's either joking or painfully pathetic.
Thats all fun and games until you and her are both shit faced watching a movie when a sex scene comes on, each of your genitals will tingle and your general awareness will improve.
Or if you walk in on her showering/getting changed.. same as above.
You may not want it but your penis will harden.
also if you have ever fapped over her all bets are of that's now a sexual tension situation.
I'm hoping this post is a joke. Jesus Christ.
Hot Coldman
Banned
YOU WILL THINK OF HER SEXUALLY, else GAF will destroy you
I always turn to GAF for validation on who I date.
Could you become friends with this women without any sexual feelings ?
Hot Coldman
Banned
Dunno, but I like to think we're all the masters of our own penis
Like I said, they love to fuck shit up, but so do little kids, and they can be kept in line
Like I said, they love to fuck shit up, but so do little kids, and they can be kept in line
- Status