Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shenglong | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue that when a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman become friends, at least one party wants to have sex with the other. This desire doesn't need to be realizable, but the desire must be there.

Why? Well, because we want to have sex with people we're attracted to. Thus, the only way for neither party not to want sex, is for neither party to be attracted (physically, intellectually, emotionally) to the other... but if that's the case, and neither party finds the other attractive in any attributes, then why would they be friends in the first place?

I suppose there are those rare instances where both parties find the other physically intolerable, but enjoy the intellectual pursuits. But then, perhaps we need to redefine man and woman in this context.

View on HN

I don't understand this at all. I don't want to have sex with any of my male friends yet I still find compelling reasons for friendship with them. So why then can't things that are completely non-sexual attract me to women and be a foundations for a friendship with them too?

It almost sounds like we are nothing more than the sum of some animalistic urges we have little control over. I have not found this to be my experience, and sometimes wonder if it isn't a popular myth we like to use to excuse our behaviours sometimes.

> It almost sounds like we are nothing more than the sum of some animalistic urges we have little control over.

Actually it looks like that's precisely what many believe; that's the excuse for veiling women in "traditional" religious societies after all (because you know, men all are rabid rapists; at least all pious believers must be, apparently).

You're close, but the actual view is that all men are noble souls who are corrupted instantly when they glimpse a woman's ankle. Conclusion: women are inherently wicked and must be suppressed.

I disagree as an American heterosexual guy who has many female friends.

It works the same way any friendship works with the same sex for heterosexual men. I have positively no desire to sleep with my closest male friends, but they are my friends because we challenge each other, support each other or just otherwise get along and have similar interests (preach to the choir to each other).

Of my female friends, my emotional/sexual desire ranges. I opt for transparency. I don't do booty calls or casual sex because it doesn't work for me. But I have admitted my feelings to several of my female friends (both as "I'm not interested in anything other than a platonic relationship" to get it off the table and the opposite). In one case I dated a close friend for a short stint, and in almost all of the others my feelings were not reciprocated (I think American women where I live anyway don't see long term friends as sexual objects as I have no problems attracting good looking women that are otherwise strangers -- topic for another reply). In all cases, sharing my emotional/sexual feelings strengthened the friendship after a short period of awkwardness. It simply takes the issue off the table.

Not very convincing. According to this logic, everyone is a bisexual who wants to have sex with all of their friends, or either need to redefine 'man'/'woman' in this (all?) contexts. Unless assuming essentialism as related to sexuality, which has some problems, such as how to explain the fact that most people are neither entirely heterosexual or homosexual, for example (citation: Kinsey report).

By the way, I would argue that man/woman are more than sexual definitions. They are also social, moral in some religions, biological...

I think you're misunderstanding my logic. I'm not saying that men and women are friends -because- of desire - I'm saying that men and women who are friends, require that desire to be present in at least one of the two sides.

I Agree. More importantly, there seems to be a flawed assumption in this opinion piece that friendship has to be either sexual or platonic.

I would argue that every relationship with every human being has both emotional drivers (chemistry) and surface dynamics that don't necessarily reflect those deeper emotions and feelings at play, but rather serve a utility or provide some sort of mutually beneficial value.

In other words, why can't someone be friends with someone, get whatever value they hope to get out of the relationship (i.e. shared interests, working relationship, etc...)and also have deeper sexual drivers at play, which many times will not only never surface, but they would never admit to others and many times even to themselves.

I think someone tying feminism and equal rights into this discussion not only has no understanding of human nature and how and why we have seek out friendship and relationships, but may very well be the root of the discrimination and objectification that leads to sexual harrasement, etc...

Every decision we make meets an emotional need and is justified after the fact with logic and reasoning. Why would relationships under any context be any different.

Just to be clear, I am not saying you cant have a relationship without someone being sexually interested, I am just saying it really doesn't and shouldn't matter and really isn't relevant unless it is on the surface or comes to fruition.

How about relatives? How about folks in your social circle you find tolerable? How about people at work that are funny or charming?

There are loads of reasons to be 'attracted' to someone without it being sex - we're stuffed into lots of social situations where we want to find somebody 'friendly' to pass the time.

Agreed. Very humorous site making the point is http://www.laddertheory.com also makes you think about which aspects are humorous.... Because they're true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com