I just don't think about you that way.
Image: iStock/Skip O'Donnell
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Can heterosexual men and women ever be “just friends”? Few other questions have provoked debates as intense, family dinners as awkward, literature as lurid, or movies as memorable. Still, the question remains unanswered. Daily experience suggests that non-romantic friendships between males and females are not only possible, but common—men and women live, work, and play side-by-side, and generally seem to be able to avoid spontaneously sleeping together. However, the possibility remains that this apparently platonic coexistence is merely a façade, an elaborate dance covering up countless sexual impulses bubbling just beneath the surface.
New research suggests that there may be some truth to this possibility—that we may think we’re capable of being “just friends” with members of the opposite sex, but the opportunity (or perceived opportunity) for “romance” is often lurking just around the corner, waiting to pounce at the most inopportune moment.
In order to investigate the viability of truly platonic opposite-sex friendships—a topic that has been explored more on the silver screen than in the science lab—researchers brought 88 pairs of undergraduate opposite-sex friends into…a science lab. Privacy was paramount—for example, imagine the fallout if two friends learned that one—and only one—had unspoken romantic feelings for the other throughout their relationship. In order to ensure honest responses, the researchers not only followed standard protocols regarding anonymity and confidentiality, but also required both friends to agree—verbally, and in front of each other—to refrain from discussing the study, even after they had left the testing facility. These friendship pairs were then separated, and each member of each pair was asked a series of questions related to his or her romantic feelings (or lack thereof) toward the friend with whom they were taking the study.
The results suggest large gender differences in how men and women experience opposite-sex friendships. Men were much more attracted to their female friends than vice versa. Men were also more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them—a clearly misguided belief. In fact, men’s estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt—basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends. Women, too, were blind to the mindset of their opposite-sex friends; because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual. As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends.
Men were also more willing to act on this mistakenly perceived mutual attraction. Both men and women were equally attracted to romantically involved opposite-sex friends and those who were single; “hot” friends were hot and “not” friends were not, regardless of their relationship status. However, men and women differed in the extent to which they saw attached friends as potential romantic partners. Although men were equally as likely to desire “romantic dates” with “taken” friends as with single ones, women were sensitive to their male friends’ relationship status and uninterested in pursuing those who were already involved with someone else.
See what we're tweeting about
110 Comments
Add CommentThis article cites no statistics. It speaks in generalities, like that men are "more likely" to want sex with the female friend. By the end of the article, this becomes universal; i.e. all men are seen as sexually attracted to female friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, it omits the observation psychologists have had for years that (a) the patriarchal competition between men makes it difficult for men to be friends with each other in a personal way, and so they seek this type of recognition and support from women but (b) the low status of women in patriarchy means men don't want to reciprocate this from women (they just want to use the women for support).
This is one reason that men actually value marriage more than women, but then tend not to see the marriage as a reciprocal enterprise. Viola, a high divorce rate.
Well ... since it takes two to tango .. and women are less likely to act on a romntic notion held by the guys .. the real answer is .. yes they can still be "just friends".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, the small sample of the individuals involved is in no way representative of all the population. Even if it was, the existence of attraction does not mean people cannot be friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a male who wants monogamy and female friends but have figured out this is seldom tolerated by spouses; I want to advise my young male friends to give up the Idea that female spouses will be tolerant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should design a study that gives faithful married men a clue to why their spouses cheat under the false impression that they are being cheated on?
Sadly so I might add.
Er...your gender and personal experience doesn't make you an expert on all males and you ignored arguments in previous comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, prove (scientifically) the following assumptions you have: 1) men are all about sex biologically while women aren't about sex biologically at all 2) only women want companionship 3) all women all the time can get sex and choose to do so 4) men only see women as conquests 6) happily partnered men deliberately look for possible future 'conquests' in their female friends.
It's not natural for men and women to be 'just friends' - and personally, I think it's impossible. Although I accept that men and women are wired differently - I have doubts about the drawn conclusion of the author that women don't share the undercurrent of sexual attraction in a supposedly' non-sexual' relationship. The un-articulated issue here is the potential for a non-binding sexual relationship between friends of the opposite sex. The taboo on casual sex is a relic from the Victorian era - a more based on pragmatism and prudishness and not on fundamental biological drives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFidelity along with monogamy have been hammered home as virtues whereas it is at loggerheads with reality. Desire and lust have long been treated as sinful by western religions whereas it is actually a powerful primal urge. Artificial sexual indifference is just that, a manufactured state-of-mind by society to overcome an inability to acknowledge that extra-marital spousal arousal is very real and very common. I believe that women have been conditioned to bury their real feelings and desires for the sake of inter-gender harmony and village welfare.
BMR
Is there a reason why all the links go to some general site, and the study itself isn't listed or linked anywhere? While I think this is fascinating and worthwhile information, I'd like to see numbers before I pass on this information, please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you aware, for instance, that the "New Research" hotlink sends you to a blank google search, and the "privacy" link sends you to the SA homepage? Whaa? Why aren't the study, it's authors, or their place of work named in the article, or prominently highlighted in the sidebar?
OK, some googling around reveals(I assume, without a proper citation who knows - there could be more than one)this was a study reported in the August issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships called Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Other articles on this study say the field was 88 college-age men and women. I can see where this might not offer an accurate picture, both because of the age range chosen and because of the small field. So, basically, interesting speculation.
I'm sorry, but good scientific writing requires good citations, otherwise it's impossible to differentiate from opinion.
We absolutely need it to be one OR the other it can't be nuanced that's for sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is the worst piece that I have seen on SciAm in a long time. 2 main reasons:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Men are genetically programmed to become sex addicts (like in South Park).
2. I am a living rebuttal of this article. I am "just friends" with multiple girls/young women about my age (actually, my best friend is a few months older than me, and my relationship with her consists of loaning each other D&D books and eternally trying to actually play D&D together).
Virtues are the fruit of self discipline and do not drop from heaven as does rain or snow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is idiotic. Can homosexual men and homosexual men be just friends? Can lesbians and lesbians be just friends? Can lesbians and gays be just friends? Can gays and straights be just friends?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, once you look at all the permutations, you nuance this thing into oblivion.
Its possible to be just be working colleagues rather than just friends. Enlightened self interest avoids unwarranted social and sexual relationships. It all the people I've met who were just friends the male invariably was homosexual either jealously closeted or healthily open about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...women were sensitive to their male friends’ relationship status and uninterested in pursuing those who were already involved with someone else."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInvalidated the article for me. Only a complete fool or someone very naive would believe every woman in the study would be uninterested in a relation with a man just because he was already in relationship.
As my college boyfriend kindly pointed out to me many years ago, 'if he's talking to you that means he would'. Now you know. Does this stop men and women being friends - NOT AT ALL. Uses of having a research biologist as a college boyfriend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Single undergraduate students? All it proves is that the subject sample is made out of randy horndogs. If you're going to generalize about "men" and "women", why not use adults in the real world? Coworkers and PTA members and neighbors??? Any idiot could tell you that college kids have exactly one goal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazed that modern humanity managed to get through this entire article, plus 16 comments, without any mention of the film 'When Harry Met Sally'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is STUPID! My best friend (other than my wife) is female. We have been friends for 20 years. I hate to be bummer but the few times that my male brain wonders into the sexual fantasy zone, it just creeps me out and reinforces the platonic nature of our relationship. As a matter of fact, my girl friend (not girlfriend) can be credited with hooking myself and my wife up. I have always seen her more as family than a potential f**k, and I don't see any reason to change it. Sorry SA, you guys COMPLETELY missed the ball on this one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting study, pleasing to see science being put to some very poignant, although seemingly insignificant, daily interactions that may, in fact, underlie many of our bigger decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from being a generalized article, which I don't mind as long as there are references to original data, there seems to be something missing here. I think we may be overlooking the difference in self-reporting between males and females. It seems, on average, men are much more straight-forward and "unashamed", so to speak, of their urges while women seem to account for social implications before answering and, therefore, might temporarily change the "truth" of their beliefs.
In other words, what seems to me is that we need different ways to approach the topic of "attraction" in a study such as this. Sure, these women didn't feel "attracted" to their male friends, that's where the phrase "friend-zoned" comes from. However, if these women were asked how attached they were to their friends or if some part of them enjoyed compliments or even jealousy from this male friend, then perhaps the true nature of their desire would be evident. I believe it is possible for women to not be sexually stimulated by their platonic friends, unlike men are, but also to have a desire to keep that friendship or that guy friend around, as it ultimately re-affirms their sexual desirability on a subconscious level.
All rules have exceptions. Also, you do not know what is on her mind either ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen and woman...i suppose that means age 14 to 90. The photo shows some cliche teens. Hopefully the sudy was actually about men and women and not some selected group of college volunteers as is the case in many of these studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10 to 1 there were more test subjects in there 20's than 70's.
The "pleasure" you speak of is not clear. The way many men engage in sexual relationships if for men's pleasure, not women's. When you say, women "can get pleasure anytime they want", this is not correct. Women can give pleasure to men anytime they want; finding a man who can engage in a reciprocal, respectful, interactive relationship that is the foundation of pleasure for both is much more difficult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with all those who find this article full of nonsense, or at least non-science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article describes the selection of subjects for study only by stating:
"... researchers brought 88 pairs of undergraduate opposite-sex friends into... a science lab."
One can only wonder if the subject solicitation announcement said anything like 'Bring an opposite gender friend in for a laboratory study of sexual attraction' that might have biased the selection process...
If nothing else, the conclusions of this study likely only apply to 'volunteer' young undergraduate students attending an American university, not military personnel or nursing home residents, etc.
Please see “The university student as a model organism”,
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n5/full/nn0510-521.html
I asked the author for the paper. Need to read it in order to see the numbers. I agree there is a lack of data in the article but the aim of it is to give us a general idea about this kind of relationships. And, as always and more notorious is humans, there will always be a lot of variability within the data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs is often the case when these sorts of stories are posted, there is a rush of anecdotal evidence from both sides. All you "sample size n=1" types should open a statistics book sometime. ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is insane to present a sexual/romantic study of college age individuals as being representative of the general population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am almost 49 and have been best friends with a female for over 25 years. I also have been married for over 24 years and have never crossed that line or looked at her in any other way then" Friend" Our relationship has always been very strong and my wife has no problem with that, we do things with my friend and her husband and times I do things just with her. Men and woman can be just friends, there just has to be respect and trust like any other relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlato was talking about friendship between men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn his day, wives were there to run the household and bear legitimate children.
The article is a bit silly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes sweeping generalizations.
It includes only the age group most focused on sexual pursuit.
Even given the above, your article clearly demonstrates that men and women can be successful platonic friends - merely that these men would prefer something more, and are settling for a platonic friendship. So the "overpopulation crisis" comment at the end of the article is way out of line.
I'm in complete agreement with you. This is supposed to be a lay science magazine, not People magazine or Cosmo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo article in SciAm should ever be published on this site without scientific references. I'm not willing to compromise on this.
So, editor. Are you listening?
How many agree with me?
So a man is someone who'll make friends in order to have sex, while a woman is somebody who have sex in order to make friends. Sounds about right to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought who commented on the different reasons why women may look to men with less interest, and man, for the fact of having no easy road to it, can not look so easily to women without seeing the oportunity comming suddenly up to the site, very accurate and simply sees what a scientific piece should embase the facts, to get to conclusions...what I see in this article is rather the opposite: a inaccurate version like some piece of comercial thing, to sell what might look intriguing at first glance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFour simple words: Where are the stats?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree - the silly quip to quote the article is just the final insult:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But if we all thought like men, we’d probably be facing a serious overpopulation crisis."
Since global population has increased seven-fold over any previous human population in just the past two hundred years, its difficult to imagine a more serious overpopulation crisis. Of course, the population is expected to increase from the current 7 billion people to reach 9 billion by 2050, increasingly occupying ever denser urban regions...
Note to other readers: Adrian F. Ward is a crank...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the first study 88 male and 88 female university friends rated their friend on average between 4 or 5 out of 9 on an attraction scale. The difference between genders was hugely significant! The actual difference was 5-4= [1 point out of 9]... hugely meaningless!
5 out of 9 on attraction? Wow, either these kids are totally ready to jump each other or they just circled the middle scores on a 9 point scale and called it a day.
When the authors ran the study again with a smaller sample they found the differences were slightly bigger, men's attraction to friends was ~5.7 on average, women's was about 4.2 on average or about a 1.5 point difference. On the other hand, when they mailed a bunch of people not enrolled in an undergrad psyc class who really couldn't care less about this silly exercise (and who also happened to be older than these university kids), they found that men and women were equally likely to score very low on the "friend attraction" rating ~3/9.
Conclusion? Try not to let psychology studies, or reruns of Friends episodes bias how you view the world.
Note to self: STOP reading SciAm
There are two flaws with this study, the first is truly critical:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. There is a false assumption in the study that the pairs of friends have equal value as potential mates. (The study was of 88 pairs of undergraduate students). Women in the 18-24 year-old age group are at their maximal value as mates, at their peak fecundity and attractiveness.
Men of that age group are most certainly not at their maximal value as mates. Undergraduate men, while immensely capable of producing offspring, have little ability to provide for them. As yet without degree or substantive income, they have only the potential to become providers which is a risky bet particularly in these times. The same 30 year old males with a degree and a proven professional career track, however, is a different matter altogether!
In other words, the study's pairs may be equal in age, but NOT value.
2. "women were sensitive to their male friends’ relationship status and uninterested in pursuing those who were already involved with someone else." This reeks of the fatal flaw that hoaxed Margaret Mead: the participants social mores may have undermined their honesty. It is, after all, unbecoming in our society to tempt another woman's mate. That certainly doesn't preclude the desire to do so, but could certainly lead to the women in the study to falsely report disinterest.
Yeah, this is bogus generalization science - and I heard the same study about 6 months ago. I'm a guy and pretty much all of my friends are women. I think this study was based on the mythical pure testosterone alpha male meathead and not all men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn increase of 10 fold for older males,where the hell did that come from.5 10 50 years older,who knows.I think the authors bias is clear and corrupts his entire study.Just because he can't have a female freindship without thinking of her as a sex object doesn't mean that all men do this.Real science isn't what you feel or think.Its about the data and there is none here to be found,or at least any reference to what studies he is speaking of,or who did them.How will this person ever get a doctorate degree if he doesn't know anything about the scientific method?How did he even get this far?I can see why he was a consultant only briefly,not something he should be putting on his resume.This may be the biggest piece of garbage ever published by Sciam that I have ever read,but keep trying I am sure you can do better if you try.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat may be all well and good as far as you're concerned, but I wonder what your female "best friend" might reveal if asked in confidentiality what HER true feelings are about YOU!
This is another serious stumbling block; and it's not gender-specific!
Relation between the opposite sexes can be relational, recreational or procreational. The first is governed by common human psyche. Physiologically, both complement each other. This brings in the relational aspect. This complementarity can be physical or behavioral or psychological. The physical aspect may affect the psyche.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe procreational aspect can be related to charge interaction. Males can be compared to positive charge and females to negative charge. This gives a true picture of their relationship.
The recreational aspect is most tricky, because, various extraneous factors can creep in to complicate the underlying assumptions. For example, many girls (world wide in general) can enter into a relationship for material or other considerations.
I suppose that is why women consider men entertaining, but losers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not agree at all, or at least there are big exceptions. This happens in north America where culturally it's impossible a heterosexual frienship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a colombian woman, and for colombian people is very common to have the best friend among persons of the opposite sex. Myself is an example, my best friend since my adolescence has been a man (different of my husband), and has been friend with my husband too.
He has been the brother who gave me the life as a gift!!!
Actually, your same sex friends are actually gay for you, and vice versa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother example of the Ken and Barbie syndrome. This article. Come on, we are friends or acquaintances with most the people we know. Enemies and lovers are fairly rare. Hopefully. If they are speaking strictly sex (for which cultural norms are ever changing), then yes, friends can have sex and still be friends. So are they studying sex or are they studying relationships?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct in your observations. However, what mechanism would you suggest to open the world of science and math to the masses? Should the educated be the elite, while the rest of us shuffle off to the mines? Aren't you interested in using the magazine as a tool to educate and spread open the world of science to everyone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother conclusion to the study could be that women are more willing to have friendships with men they are not attracted to, and men are less likely to pursue friendships with women who they are not attracted to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed. This is a terrible study. Asking single, largely unattached college students how they feel about the opposite sex. It also did not take into account the differences between personality types. Regardless of whether you support Myers-Briggs or other personality classifications, you cannot deny that there are personality attributes that differ largely between people. For some personality types it is perfectly fine. I have many female friends and it has never been a problem, and my wife has never been concerned or asked any questions. But there are other people with other personality types, that cannot handle relationships with the other sex. If both of the people in the friendship are compatible personality types, it will be fine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUM, that's not really surprising. You are a male D&D fan, which means "just friends" is as far as you're going to get with a girl. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWait, you did this study on COLLEGE STUDENTS? And are extrapolating for all of humanity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to read the actual study, click on the link "New research" in the second paragraph. This is clearly an article about the research aimed toward those without education in research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can certified that it's possible to become great friends. I do have some great women friends, truly friends, JUST FRIENDS. I suggest you not to make such an affirmation. Instead of your title, I would say, SOME MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE GREAT FRIENDS, OTHERS CAN'T. From this point of view you can develop a beautiful research of the motivations both groups have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislOVE,
oscar
The findings of the study don't imply what is stated. In fact, my assessment of what the findings mean is pretty much the opposite - it is women who prevent the friendships, in most cases. Here is why: I do have female friends, and that works pretty well if the females in question are not attracted to me, but generally has not worked for females that are sexually attracted to me. If I'm not interested, those females tend to just say bye-bye. I do have a few female friends that are attracted to me, but that is the exception, not the rule.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that most men are attracted to more females than vice versa, and may have fantasies or whatever. I recall Ali saying that he could find something sexy in just about every woman, and I am like that myself. However, if the gal says no, most of the time I can just shrug and say 'too bad' to myself, and let it go. In my experience, women are significantly less likely to take that view, when the situation is reversed.
This is all non-scientific, of course, but my final conclusion is that man/woman friends would work better if we all thought like men, rather than like women.
There's always one exception (especially when it comes to people), may have to do with that geek.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a married man--happily married for 31 years. I've had a close platonic friendship with a single woman for ten years. Also enjoy another close platonic friendship with another single woman for 4.5 years. My wife loves them both. I've written a book about male-female friendship from a Christian faith perspective, *Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions* available at Amazon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe overwhelming disproportion between man and women feeling involved, which tends to increase with age, is probably correlated with the female tendency to express their feelings more openly (or of their weaker ability to 'control' them), which makes them less likely to simulate an uninterested attitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with 7. QuipsTravails and 9. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc.geek.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study reads like something from a half-baked newspaper hack journalist's search for an interesting headline under a deadline. It is in no way a study being reported scientifically. It 'could' be a scientific study, from which our hypothetical journalist has sloppily reduced the study to vague statements and failed to report his or her sources and the numbers on which the study were based; or it could be just what 7. QuipsTravails discovered when he/she persevered -- that the links are nonsense and the actually base study group was very small.
I think we all should be disappointed in Mr Ward apparent lack of scientific honesty in posting such an article.
Undergraduates? Results might have been different if adults in their 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s had been surveyed. Also, so-called friends with benefits might deserve a footnote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems problematic to me to regard male-female friendships from this rather "organic" perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman beings are NOT naturally monogamous. Yet we get married ALL the time, and CHOOSE to be faithful/monogamous with our chosen spouses. The fact that we may have flights of fancy and fantasies about others doesn't lead to the world declaring "Well, marriage is not possible."
Aren't friendships with the opposite sex a CHOICE, just like marriage? I have had a number of platonic friendships with women over the years-- and have been VERY attracted to some of them-- but as an evolved species we have a CHOICE in how we act. It seems to me that all this study shows is different thinking patterns between the genders, not "whether men or women can be friends."
Two thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, this is just one study of people from one society. Whatever its findings, for good or bad, it doesn't mean that its findings apply to all human beings all over the planet now, in the past, or in the future.
Secondly, and more importantly, if men and women can't be friends, then what hope for humanity is there? Do we assume that people of different skin colours, cultures, ages, sexualities - or whatever - cannot ever be honest friends? Why not people of different genders? And even if friends sometimes have romantic or sexual feelings towards each other, then that doesn't mean they can't still be friends, as long as they can accept that only mutual feelings can lead to romance.
If we assume that men and women cannot be honest friends then it seems to me the outlook for peaceful happy societies is bleak.
Probably the same as my feelings towards her. Romance, in our shared view, is best left to fictional characters, and even then is best when done haphazardly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHahaha! Yeah, I've long ago accepted that a D&D fan/paleontologist is about as romantic as wet lettuce. I can't wait for my first hot date with a dead shark (ref to my favorite TV show).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/quotes?qt=qt0221820
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBest treatment of this topic, ever, from 1989.
I concur with your sentiment. I am trying to stop laughing right now, with very little success.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell so much for 'guaranteeing' their privacy (including eliciting a promise from participants not to discuss their answers to study questions with one another). If the published results are that the vast majority of men feel one way and women another, anyone who participated can draw their own conclusions about what their friend said/thinks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how being a subject in the study affected the subjects relationships. Situations that are evocative of intimacy are likely to increase the desire for it and it's execution. The study with undergrads forced particular pairs to come in, and forced them to think much more openly about their relationship than they may have previously been willing to do. I'm certain it had an effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarilyn Van Savant once wrote a response to some viewer question. She said something like, when we are young we pursue those we are attracted to, as we get older we find ourselves attracted more to those who are attracted to us.
What is attraction anyway? Courtship, until recently, didn't seem to last for years. People had no time, they had to settle down, and start work and raise a family, and your choices were the relatively few that lived around you. And, importantly, your very survival was dependent pairing up for mutual support. The recently widowed, and that happened often, had to find someone; and they did.
The study, regardless of it's quality, is looking at these questions through a very simplified lens, and likely it has little to do with our evolutionary history, even as close as 100 years ago.
The research article does have statistics. The summary article here does not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis research is flawed, because:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) It used only undergraduate students
2) All these students are from the USA. In Asia, the results would have been significantly different even if only students were used
3) It does not take personality of each individual into account
4) There are quite a few men having no feelings in such a friendship, and women having feelings
5) For a relationship to develop, there must be emotional attachment, not just physical attraction. It is quite possible to be attracted to friends of the opposite gender. That doesn't mean you want to pursue a relationship with them
6) Friendships are made out of choice, whereas as for relationships feelings are not something that can be controlled. It is possible to friends even with someone you love, as long as you recognize your limitations.
7) As you grow older, the desire for a romantic relationship decreases rather than increases
Huh? No, we are hetero men. Therefore, we desire women in romantic relationships. We get our friendship from men who are like us and our validation as men from women who validate us sexually. What value could a hetero man get from a female buddy who could talk about menstruating and Pinterest? If I'm gonna have to hear about these female-only interests, I'd damn sure better be getting sex as part of the bargain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPublishing this article is a rap on SA. IMO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really a direct comment on the article, just a response to the "free love" multiple partner crowd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rise in monogamy is very directly tied to the increase in travel and base population numbers. Monogamy is a very real adaptation to natural influences. One lifetime sexual partner limits your exposure to STDs and also decreases exposure to contagions that are not directly labelled as STDs.
On average the monogamist relationship leads to a slightly longer life span. This allows the proponents of monogamy to exert influence longer. As we are now decreasing the impact of such disease spreading that pattern may change. Then again it may not. We know that many, if not most, cancers are caused by viruses. Many cancers run in families which tends to indicate transmission between family members. Indeed, it is likely that the wives of Newt Gingrich develop cancer directly due to infection by a virus he carries. There are a number of people I have encountered that have mentioned that more than 1 spouse has contracted the same type of cancer. (Yes, I always seem to spark the most unsettling conversations)
"Platonic love" is commonly used as an equivalent to a romantic relationship that excludes actual sex, however, the word refers to couples of persons engaging in a relationship that is different from the one a non-homosexual person would have with persons of his/her same gender, and is different from love out of the genital world, as the kind of love an spiritual being as God may have to his creatures. Very probably, the term "Platonic" designed the kind of relationship teachers had in the Classic Greece with their alumni, some kind of an "Erastia" or a sodomitic man-to-man bond. Thus, the term is used to denominate exactly the opposite as its original and true meaning, "Spiritual love", or "Romantic thoughts of lovin'" may be a more non-carnal word for the kind of feelings "Platonic" is wrongly employed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA moment of silence for our brothers in the FriendZone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is more of an article than a study. Also, the "article" first referenced does lack proper citation. However, I still take much stock in that the point of the article is to say that how /you/ view your relationship with someone may be radically different and more platonic than how they view the relationship. It's large assertion is men and women often share different viewpoints, and I can certainly attest to that. The title is wrong, yes as evidenced from your experience. It also depends on the age group, largely left out of the summary. I do want to point out, if you actually clicked on the links in the article, you would have found that the summaries come from the Journal of social and personal relationships, a scientific journal started in 1984, updated 8 times a year as a publication. Also you would have seen, the journal is edited by Mario Mikulincer, a Psychology Dean in Israel. The editorial board of the publication includes professors from several countries as well. The actual excerpt from the study, and the journal can be found in the 3rd link below. You may certainly disagree on any of this. I am merely pointing out, that one must research the researchers to make valid arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://mikulincer.socialpsychology.org/
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal200790#tabview=boards
http://bleske-rechek.com/April%20Website%20Files/Bleske-Rechek%20et%20al.%202012%20Benefit%20or%20Burden.pdf
It is more of an article than a study. Also, the "article" first referenced does lack proper citation. However, I still take much stock in that the point of the article is to say that how /you/ view your relationship with someone may be radically different and more platonic than how they view the relationship. It's large assertion is men and women often share different viewpoints, and I can certainly attest to that. The title is wrong, yes as evidenced from your experience. It also depends on the age group, largely left out of the summary. I do want to point out, if you actually clicked on the links in the article, you would have found that the summaries come from the Journal of social and personal relationships, a scientific journal started in 1984, updated 8 times a year as a publication. Also you would have seen, the journal is edited by Mario Mikulincer, a Psychology Dean in Israel. The editorial board of the publication includes professors from several countries as well. The actual excerpt from the study, and the journal can be found in the 3rd link below. You may certainly disagree on any of this. I am merely pointing out, that one must research the researchers to make valid arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://mikulincer.socialpsychology.org/
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal200790#tabview=boards
http://bleske-rechek.com/April%20Website%20Files/Bleske-Rechek%20et%20al.%202012%20Benefit%20or%20Burden.pdf
First of all, "AllisonWunderland" is a nom de plume, not an index of gender.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI concede that at 64 yrs, I'm likely ten times more inclined to have "romantic aspirations" in women who view me as "wallpaper" vis a vis relationships. Let's add here that ALL MEN are most attracted to women of child-bearing age -- which tops out at about 35 yrs.
Men's motives are to pro-create with as many women as possible, reproduce, and pass on the their genetic information in the progeny pool. Anthropological studies of apes note that older males dominate the younger females -- sexually and socially. There's a biological reason for this; it's Darwinian.
Add to this the well accepted fact that men are prompted sexually by visual cues and this attraction gears up quickly. Women are slower to respond sexually, and looking for parenting partnerships. Men a seeking more of a broad ranging "brood mare" situation.
"Higamous hogamous, woman's monogomous.
Hogamous, higamous, men are polygamous."
You are absolutely right. And your claim of "lack of statistics" can be replaced by COMPLETE MISLEADING INFORMATION. I've just read the paper, and both men and women are, on average, below the mean in the scales they asked in their questionnaire. It's important to know what MEAN means here. It goes from 1 (not at all attracted) to 5 (moderately attracted) to 9 (extremely attracted). It's up to the reader to interpret what they believe a 5 means (which is where men were scoring on average). Women scores at 4, not at all different in terms of meaning, but statistically lower. In the interest to go on a date question, this report is even more misleading. Men answered 4.55 on average, on a scale where 5 represents NEUTRAL/UNSURE. You CAN'T CLAIM MEN ARE interested in dating their female counterparts with these data; you can only say that females are more uninterested in dating their male friends, than their male friends are interested in dating them. Those are very different conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you look at the second study, where they have the older and younger sample, only a small percentage of the participants reported "the possibility of a romance" as a benefit from having a friend of the opposite sex. So claims like males were 4 times (younger) or 10 times (older) more likely to list this as a benefit need to be qualified by the small sub-sample that it applies to.
closet <- come out of it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with this study is that it studies undergraduates. People aged 18-21 tend to not be fully formed yet or have fully mature ideas about male and female relationships. As such, they are more likely to misinterpret friendship as attraction, mistake their own interest for mutual interest, etc. than adults are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry this study with people over 25 and I think you get different results.
We do have an overpopulation crisis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a joke, humor is the best medicine. Scarlet J is quite a knockout, so mega-points for you Sir! I have no idea who Chris Hemsworth is. Hulk Smash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHemsworth's Thor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, you may actually have hit something. About halfway through the big fight scene, I found myself noticing that Black Widow's uniform zipper was in the EXACT same place for that it had been in all of the other scenes in which she was wearing the uniform. I found myself imagining Scarlet Johanason pulling up the zipper in between scenes, and some film staffer leaping forwards, screaming "NOOO!!!!!", and pulling it back down to the same spot.
I think that the stereotype of scientists as without sexual orientation may have some basis.
Uh, what about female friends that I, as a male, don't find attractive? I can see the point that men are more willing to turn certain relationships into romantic ones, but the study seems awfully loose without any real mention of the individual men and women who listed a "1" on the attractiveness scale. And did anyone bother to notice that the mean was still under "5" (which was described as moderately attractive) for men in the first study?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, what about the semantics of the word "attraction?" I'd be curious to see if the results in the study would be any different if the term used for conducting the research was "sexual attraction."
Women are much more selective than men and find very few men sexually desirable/ appealing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen find a much larger number and a variety of women sexually attractive.
This means that generally, a guy would be attracted to most of his female friends and would'nt mind being sexual with them. While a woman would only be attracted to 1 or 2 who are the best looking and stand out, out of a dozen.
Would you mind having a Freinds-with-Benefits if SHE offered?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat most men dont realize when they say "No way man,she's just a good friend, I dont see her that way", is that in the vast majority of cases the boundaries are set by women. The men just go with whatever boundaries are set by the female friends and think its mutual. The reality is that most of them wouldnt mind having a fling or a F-buddy arrangement if the female friend offers them.
I like <a href="http://www.datingopinions.org/dating-reviews-of-asian-euro-com.html">asian euro</a> relationships because it only shows that any race can get an attraction with other race. I am just shocked that men are much more attracted to the opposite sex and they have that kind of thinking. No wonder I see my male friends who are single that dates a lot of women even though it seems that the women are not experiencing the same attraction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like <a href="http://www.datingopinions.org/dating-reviews-of-asian-euro-com.html">asian euro</a> relationships because it only shows that any race can get an attraction with other race. I am just shocked that men are much more attracted to the opposite sex and they have that kind of thinking. No wonder I see my male friends who are single that dates a lot of women even though it seems that the women are not experiencing the same attraction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am pretty much the stereotypical geeky scientist, and have no real interest in women except as people to talk at (at, not to or with. I am noted for my verbosity) or people to exchange D&D books with in what little spare time I have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I understand... :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime and again, I see "Scientific" American dropping its claim of science for lack of any real epistemology and methodology in its editorial coverage. As a former science writer for the Associated Press, I challenge Scientific American's most senior editors to step down or explain themselves. Is this "dumbing down of science" your idea to compete with the likes of social media? You have truly lost your way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: " But if we all thought like men, we’d probably be facing a serious overpopulation crisis."––
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Oh, we AREN'T facing an over population crisis?? ;-)
2. Hinted at in the article is that men - due to their evolutionary role - are bound to be more alert to "signs" that a female is interested in a "romantic relationship." We find what we seek - it's as simple as that. Not saying that what men see is "real" though in my experience it often is.
With today's culture of "gender equality" it's even more necessary for a man to be alert to the slightest hint showing his platonic female friend may be interested in having sex (an affair, maybe marriage, etc.). The lead is given to women - to counteract the old cultural norm of male aggressiveness (still hugely popular in romance novels). So naturally men are alert to signs of interest/receptivity from their lady "friends." When she says (or signals) "no" she's supposed to mean no but it's up to her to send the right signal(s).
Interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from the statistics, this study is obviously biased toward "officially" single college undergraduates (there was no mention of any of these students being legally MARRIED), an obviously more highly-sexed age group than older people. However, there are some cautious tidbits of wisdom that can be gleaned from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is in fact true that men in close contact with women not their romantic/marital partners are MORE likely to consider the women "attracted" to them than the women, and MORE likely to overestimate the level of attraction as the men's age difference over the women increases, then it is possible that this is the self-justifying rationalization behind harassment.
That is, knowing that men in general become more attractive to women when they have wealth and power (which sometimes come with age, and provide more tools with which to counteract the physical effects of aging), the powerful man who has a woman under his authority may tell HIMSELF, sure, I'm a stud, she's trying to control herself, but she wants me, so ... the rest is tragic individual and human history.
It is notable that women with status harassing men without status are much rarer event, and when they occur it is usually with underage boys, rather than adult male underlings. Possibly this is because women who assume posts of authority do not assume it is due to their sexual attractiveness, rather that their attractiveness does not need to be defended, and is not enhanced by their status. Stereotypes about "cougars" having "boy toys" are probably restricted to industries BASED upon sexual attractiveness, such as show business (e.g., we would be more likely to believe that a movie star acts like a "cougar" than the CEO of a high tech corporation), or when the woman's status is due to a marriage which has become unsatisfying TO HER with age, and who wonders if her husband no longer finds her attactive (the "pool boy" stereotype).
An earlier poster pointed out that monogamy and fidelity are CHOICES, informed by our moral and philosophical world view. Feelings can be kept inside or confided safely (e.g. to therapists or clergy), but human will power is capable of NOT acting on them; and there IS a difference between thinking she/he is "cute" or "hot" and actually WANTING to become intimate with that person, AS A PERSON.
Why does the writer commingle the terms "sex" and "gender" within even the same paragraph of thought, and in a fashion that describes exactly the same idea but in one case using a politically correct, new age feel good term to [incorrectly] describe or indicate the sex or sexes of the person(s)? Electrical connectors and grammar have genders, people do NOT!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the same sexual thoughts of strangers as I do towards friends. I just don't act on any of them because I love my wife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut when I was single.....!!!!!:)
Foolishness. Of course men and women can 'just' be friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have a sister, Adrian F Ward? Are you feeling sexually attracted to her? Do you think all men are potentially incestuous with their female family members and have to suppress this tendency for their whole life? I don't want to say no more but would appreciate an answer to my questions and encourage men - yes you can do it! You can have platonic relationships with the opposite gender without feeling castrated!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know that it's so much women underestimating the interest of a man as it is us denying said attraction for fear of looking sexually immoral. Let's face reality here, there are societal expectations about women being sexually more pure than a man and any woman who admits to every man she is attracted to is going to look fast and loose... especially if said man might be a close friend or a coworker who we aren't "supposed" to like. I'm a woman, and I for one don't buy the perspective your article gives for an instant. Yes, there is a discrepancy between the openness of men and women about their attraction to each other, but don't think for a moment that this automatically means women just aren't attracted to a man or that they're underestimating a man's attraction to them. We know what's going on. To put it succinctly, we just don't want to look like whores who are into every man out there and want every man to be into us. Don't believe me? Then read it from the fingertips of another woman. There is a lot more to be said on this subject than I have space in a comment to write about, but I don't think the study in question is doing justice to this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.abcsofattraction.com/blog/anti-slut-defense-asd-how-society-drives-women-batshit-crazy-about-sex-part-1/
Perhaps this is why certain gay men are so popular amongst a certain social strata of straight women. As a member of that group I especially appreciate the Male friendship point of view relationship with no strings attached.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It's not natural for men and women to be 'just friends' - and personally, I think it's impossible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the hell are you talking about?
You have just called asexuals and homosexuals unnatural by proxy.
Even as a straight person you can't have sex with every member of the opposite sex. Would you want to? Do you not care for disease?
Yes because "LOVE" has really slowed down overpopulation???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Although men were equally as likely to desire “romantic dates” with “taken” friends as with single ones" sounds little weird to me, although I found this article highly interesting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is another point to the hypothesis that women should be the pickers, we male have little to no brains to asses if a friendship can turn to romance...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison the other hand, how can you offer yourself (as a male) if you don't try...
In college I had lots of girlfriends and a few that I never dated. I had four good guy friends and probably more than ten female friends with whom I drank coffee, chatted, watched tv, and occacionally went out to a bar and had a couple of drinks with. I will not say that the thought ever crossed my mind about getting closser with some of the female friends but for many reasons, I didn't let it get pass that. I think that if you can pass the point where your female friend is single and you are single at the same time and nothing happens, then you are good as frinds forever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI grew up playing with boys and I never have sex to any of them. When I'm grown up lady, I have a few male friends. Sex topic is too uncomfortable to discuss it with somebody that you treat like your own brother. Yikes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith my lover, I'm very dirty about sex. So, I am not an angel. No sex topic around male friends. If they will ask me, I will just answer them to ask my bf, not me.
It's really depends how you behave around your opposite sex.
If you're a woman, you talk to him that you love sex, what do you expect? If you're a man, and you tell her that you have a huge thick penis, what do you think will happen? It turns to sex for some people. In my case, I do like to have sex to someone I have a very strong sexual attraction. I couldn't remember if I had any with somebody because I was drunk. Never happen!
Duh!AS long as one person in the "friendship" has sexual or romantic feelings about the other,no one will want to hear about the sexual or romantic escapades of the other and once that happens,there is unspoken anxiety or jealousy or envy and the tension will reduce the "friendship">
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnspoken resentment or anger or feelings of rejection ALWAYS rears it's ugly head and it will cause one or the other person to say things that may even spoil the "friends" romanmces such as "giving advice what to do"
It only works if both people are relatively unattractive or sex and if there is really no chance of anything happening but that means(stupidly) that nothing phtysical happens.
None of can help how we feel.No one can help how they feel and those "feelings" are what define a relationship.
Women who still want to talk to or have dinner with ex-boyfriends are still having memories and sexual feelings about the person {"evn if we don't do anything".
Any man or woman who "allows" her partner to have dinner with or even talk with exes is fooling themselves.
'We we are just old friends" is bullshit.The feelings and memories and the sexual memories are still there.They are not going to be talking about the stick markey or solar energy--even if they do.
Once a relationships is over,it should be over.And if a partner says" Oh,my ex boyfriend is coming to town and "can" I have lunch with him is already a cold rejecting woman to even think that.Self centered people do not care how it affects their partner .OR gives a damn how anyone feels.
Do not trust anyone who talks that way or even asks you "would you mind if?"
Can not be trusted.!! Watch out.
Dr.Zoloft
Even eunuchs can have sexual or jealous or envious feelings and it has nothing to do whether or not anyone "does anything".Insensitivity rules the day.
Duh!AS long as one person in the "friendship" has sexual or romantic feelings about the other,no one will want to hear about the sexual or romantic escapades of the other and once that happens,there is unspoken anxiety or jealousy or envy and the tension will reduce the "friendship">
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnspoken resentment or anger or feelings of rejection ALWAYS rears it's ugly head and it will cause one or the other person to say things that may even spoil the "friends" romanmces such as "giving advice what to do"
It only works if both people are relatively unattractive or sex and if there is really no chance of anything happening but that means(stupidly) that nothing phtysical happens.
None of can help how we feel.No one can help how they feel and those "feelings" are what define a relationship.
Women who still want to talk to or have dinner with ex-boyfriends are still having memories and sexual feelings about the person {"evn if we don't do anything".
Any man or woman who "allows" her partner to have dinner with or even talk with exes is fooling themselves.
'We we are just old friends" is bullshit.The feelings and memories and the sexual memories are still there.They are not going to be talking about the stick markey or solar energy--even if they do.
Once a relationships is over,it should be over.And if a partner says" Oh,my ex boyfriend is coming to town and "can" I have lunch with him is already a cold rejecting woman to even think that.Self centered people do not care how it affects their partner .OR gives a damn how anyone feels.
Do not trust anyone who talks that way or even asks you "would you mind if?"
Can not be trusted.!! Watch out.
Dr.Zoloft
Even eunuchs can have sexual or jealous or envious feelings and it has nothing to do whether or not anyone "does anything".Insensitivity rules the day.
Allah literally means The God. There is no female equivalent for the popular male name Abdullah meaning Slave of God. The female equivalent which should be Abda-allah is non-existent. I am 53 and have been around but never came across this female name. The reason, I believe, is Almighty in His mass wisdom does not wish to regard a female as His slave even in name. Whatever God does not Will, will not happen. God has not willed women to be called Slaves of God. The absence of a slave name for women means God has placed women on a divine spiritual pedestal. So high a lordly position has Islam given to women. But man in his stupidity treats women as slaves. Muslims are the WORST in the treatment of women. If Muslims treated women with love and respect (like the Holy Prophet treated his wives) Islam would be the world’s ONLY religion. Muslims would once again be world rulers. But the problem is, if not as a lord, Muslims are not even prepared to treat women as their equal. With such mentality, Muslims would always be the slaves of their selves. We would never be able to rise above our enemies. The Caliphate was a spiritual empire. To recreate the Islamic Empire our spirituality has to be nurtured. Women represent spiritualism and men represent materialism. If man doesn’t respect women, he is a slave of his self. He is a slave of materialism. Be a slave of spiritualism and you can be the lord of the materialists. Be a slave of women and you can be the lord of the West. Global Caliphate is ours for the taking if we treat ALL women (spiritualism – also symbolizing the other) with love and respect. So long the Muslims do not respect the other; they wouldn’t even be able to rule their selves, let alone the world. We can rule the world once again if we loved the other. The other is divine. This is the wisdom behind the absence of slave names for women. Spiritualism, women and the guy in front of you – all represent the other and are divine. The summary is – You is divine; I is temporal. This is Islam. Peace be with you. uvaiscassim@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm bisexual, so I guess I can be friends with no-one. Great. -_-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But if we all thought like men, we’d probably be facing a serious overpopulation crisis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr maybe there wouldn't be so many single ladies out there whining about how they can't find a decent man...
Or maybe there wouldn't be so many single blokes shooting up schools just because they can't get laid...
Interesting study but it just goes to show that pushing the "platonic is best" routine is very one sided and not in societies best interest!
Wow your response is cool. Could you please suggest further statistical and sociological info? Thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrilliant, concise and on point. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this