Jump to content

What do you think when people say "People can't be friends with the opposite sex"?


(Creative name)

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, CBC said:

Not saying one is necessarily worse, though. At first glance, an affair sounds obviously worse. Not always the case though, I don't think. Depends on the specifics of the relationship.

Yeah, not passing judgment on the degree of pain or the intent or anything... it’s just that saying both are infidelity is like saying both money-laundering and assault are theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skullery Maid said:

Yeah because there's never been an asexual with bad debt. You angels! 

Well I personally don't have any bad debt so....👼🙏

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AceOfHearts_85 said:

Well I personally don't have any bad debt so....👼🙏

I don't care about you personally, I know many an asexual with many a vice. Though since we're on the subject... You could just leave people alone, but you're compelled to pick at the things that matter most to people for the purpose of causing strife. Imma go ahead and call that a behavior control issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I don't care about you personally, I know many an asexual with many a vice. Though since we're on the subject... You could just leave people alone, but you're compelled to pick at the things that matter most to people for the purpose of causing strife. Imma go ahead and call that a behavior control issue. 

Great.👍  Your concern for me personally isn't desired nor required.  And I don't pick on anyone or anything whatsoever.  Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but you're incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic

If you add sex to friends it's literally called "friends with benefits". It's still friends.

 

Things get disrupted when you add romantic *feelings* (whether or not sex is had), that's when stuff hits a fan and people can't "just be friends".

 

I'm not a fan of the idea that people have "self control", I think that's a lucky conceit to have. Infatuations and love will happen, and you learn to deal with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Self control? I have the self control of a fat man in a doughnut factory. Mainly because I'm a fat man and I know how little control I would have in a doughnut factory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic

Hmm, a mad scientist could use those doughnut gifs to condition aces into being sexuals.  They are so engrossing.

 

I'd go on, but I'm about to get into Chatterbox-tier silliness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's ridiculous. Of course people can be friends with people from the opposite sex. I'm kinda jealous actually, cause I can't be friends with guys. It's just because of my personal issues with men. I spent 4 weeks in a ward last year and somehow, everyone found out pretty quickly about how I'm uncomfortable with men. There was this young man who temporally worked there and the first time I officially met him he teasingly said to me "So I heard you hate men!". He was kinda funny though, and I think he was trying hard to be nice to me but I think I acted cold towards him. I act cold towards all men I meet. But it's not because I dislike them, I'm just extremely uncomfortable with them. I would love to have guy friends though... 

I don't know why I felt the need to share that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anisotrophic said:

I'm not a fan of the idea that people have "self control", I think that's a lucky conceit to have. Infatuations and love will happen, and you learn to deal with i

I don’t think people can control their feelings.  Like you said, crushes happen.  What I do think people can do, though, is control their actions.  Having a crush, regardless of sexuality, does not mean having to try to start a relationship with the “crushee,” or to switch from friends to FWB, or to move from friends to lovers.  Those decisions and actions all stem from choices within our control... they’re not inevitable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rob Boss said:

Hmm, a mad scientist could use those doughnut gifs to condition aces into being sexuals.  They are so engrossing.

I must be ace-donut-ual as all I could think watching that was “wow, that process wastes so much glaze!”

Link to post
Share on other sites

I briefly compared it to that but the color and consistency weren’t close enough to keep me thinking along those lines.  Now, I have this one pump hair product that’s a dead ringer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hair product was hilarious.  Not only was the appearance spot-on, but it was something you were supposed to use very sparingly so each depression of the pump dispensed a small amount.

 

I’m done too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IronHamster
10 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Regardless of what comprises the marriage vows, refusing to have sex and having an extramarital affair aren’t the same thing,

 

If you subscribe to the idea of “an eye for an eye” justice you could argue that (either) one deserves the other but that still doesn’t make them both infidelity.

They are the same.  To have and to hold means sex, and forsaking all others means monogamy.  You cannot have monogamy without sex.  

 

That being said, if two people marry with the intention of never having physical intimacy, that is perfectly moral and acceptable.  

 

Likewise, if two people marry with the intent of swinging because they like to show off what is theirs, that is also perfectly acceptable.   

 

What is evil as fuck is either demanding sex from a spouse that does not want it, or deceptively refusing sex from one that does.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

They are the same.  To have and to hold means sex, and forsaking all others means monogamy.  You cannot have monogamy without sex.  

To have and to hold can mean a lot more than just sex. But, also, that isn't everyones vows. Those were not the vows I said either time. 😛

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my state, adultery, abuse, and abandonment are all considered actionable breaches of the marriage contract.  They are comparable, but they are not the same.

 

Depending on your perspective refusing to provide sex and having an affair may be comparable.  They still aren’t the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

What is evil as fuck is either demanding sex from a spouse that does not want it, or deceptively refusing sex from one that does. 

What comprises “deceptively refusing”?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

What comprises “deceptively refusing”?

Agreeing to have sex but then pantomiming it. Bonus points if it's done with white gloves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CBC said:

an asexual person not being upfront about their identity if they already know, going into the relationship, that they're ace. Or a partner repeatedly making promises to work on the sex issue, or outright promising sex, and then doing bugger all.

As someone who does an excellent job representing a good part of the pantheon of anxiety disorders I have a lot more sympathy for the latter (at least when it stems from meaning it at the time and just not being able to carry through, as opposed to lying initially) than I do the former.  I’d call the former (along with lying about the latter) deceptive.  The latter is more about not being able to consistently put your relationship above your mental health challenges.

 

Doesn’t mean a partner has to tolerate it... it’s just not deceptive to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

I don’t think people can control their feelings.  Like you said, crushes happen.  What I do think people can do, though, is control their actions.  Having a crush, regardless of sexuality, does not mean having to try to start a relationship with the “crushee,” or to switch from friends to FWB, or to move from friends to lovers.  Those decisions and actions all stem from choices within our control... they’re not inevitable.

Yes yes yes, I find myself having to remind people of this a lot in a number of contexts. The idea that if you have a crush on someone you must do everything within your power to make it happen because you can't help how you feel...that's very unhealthy. It's refusing to own up to your own autonomy, which in this case means expecting another person to sacrifice theirs to make your desires become reality. I've met a few mature people who grasped this, fortunately, when they developed feelings for me. 

 

This happens with romantic feelings, platonic feelings, and also hate. If someone pisses you off, you have a choice to work through why that might be, and see if you have to keep yourself in check (if the negative emotions don't withstand tests of logic) or learn to ignore it and shed the negativity. Too many people instead make that hate a part of themselves and just act like cocky jerks. It's not that different to people feeling entitled to reciprocation of romantic feelings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

The idea that if you have a crush on someone you must do everything within your power to make it happen because you can't help how you feel...that's very unhealthy. It's refusing to own up to your own autonomy, which in this case means expecting another person to sacrifice theirs to make your desires become reality. 

Yes! I feel like this happens when people get confused about "needs"... you can need a type of person (someone into bdsm) but you can't need a specific person (me to do bdsm with you). 

 

My mom has this problem. Instead of finding people who like to do what she likes to do, she wants the people she already knows to just... change... so she doesn't have to make new friends. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
10 hours ago, ryn2 said:

I don’t think people can control their feelings.  Like you said, crushes happen.  What I do think people can do, though, is control their actions.  Having a crush, regardless of sexuality, does not mean having to try to start a relationship with the “crushee,” or to switch from friends to FWB, or to move from friends to lovers.

Yes, my point was instead that someone may decide/discover that they "can't be friends". It's common for people to need emotional distance to get over a crush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

Yes, my point was instead that someone may decide/discover that they "can't be friends". It's common for people to need emotional distance to get over a crush.

Ah, agreed.  That’s not how I’ve usually heard the phrase used, though...  it’s often used to deride/undermine successful attempts at friendship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
18 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Ah, agreed.  That’s not how I’ve usually heard the phrase used, though...  it’s often used to deride/undermine successful attempts at friendship.

Ah, I feel like I've heard it as a caution. "Watch out, there's some extra dangers here."

Which I think is true... but for many/most they're choosing to deal with it if/when it happens, rather than avoid the risk of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anisotrophic said:

Ah, I feel like I've heard it as a caution. "Watch out, there's some extra dangers here."

Which I think is true... but for many/most they're choosing to deal with it if/when it happens, rather than avoid the risk of it.

I’ve usually heard it used as “sure, they *say* they’re ‘just friends, but...” wink wink nudge nudge, or as “he’s just pretending to be your friend so he can get in your pants,” or to enforce gender roles when a girl tries to hang with the guys (or vice versa, but that seems to draw more comments about losing your man card and less about how the girls aren’t your friends) at parties.

 

I can see how that could vary  by geography/friend group, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...