Relationship with Friends

[nomas]

Well, are you or are you not conducting an experiment?

Nope, not conducting an experiment. Everything I've said is the logic behind my behavioral rules I place upon myself..as I've seen and experienced and as they make sense to me. The explanation makes it sound scientific, and this may be why you think I'm conducting an experiment.

Take what may be your behavior for instance:

If you're walking down the street, do you make constant comments to random strangers? is this a typical indi walk down the street:

"Ooh, you're quite fat."..."Hey, your ears are very big"..."Your eyes are too close together"...

Let us assume that you don't do this. I don't view this as an experiment..it' simply your set of rules to your behavior..but you can also explain it as like:

1. A stimulus (also called perturbation) is applied: the appearance of the oncoming stranger
2. A result is observed: he's too fat, her ears too big, his eyes too close together

IF deemed abnormal, make a comment, ELSE return to 1.

Sounds pretty scientific, doesn't it? But all it is is an explanation to behavior, much in the way of computer programming.

I'm not conducting experiments here..I'm making observations and it decides how I behaver.

If you lean on a hot stove you get burned. You decide your behavior from now on will bet not to lean on a hot stove. That can be explained with your same stimulus, result, response model too, but it's still no experiment to me, it's explanation of behavior.

Your next action will be determined by their response, towards a particular goal (getting them to show/feel more interest). If you weren't manipulating the system, your next stimulus would be random (b/c you're just collecting unbiased data, right?). Sorry but this is manipulation (as I define it). You are carefully arranging your actions to produce a DESIRED, and decidedly unbiased response from them.

Are you manipulating the fat guy by not telling him he's fat? You want him not to feel bad about himself so you say nothing. Is this manipulation? You're basing your own response or lack thereof not at random, but based on your want.

Nobody has the right to force them to open up and reveal themselves or call them fronters if they don't.

Of course not. I never said this. But some might argue you are not being honest by calling yourself "friend" when you are really maneuvering for more...

I wasn't accusing you of it. I was just making a point. I'll follow up on yours on my next post where I'll quote another one of yours that I think is relevant to this..

[nomas]

BTW, Hayward..yeah, I re-read it..it still makes sense to me. Granted I didn't define the words "lovers" and the word "great friends" 100%..I didn't put all the thought in the world into it, but just right off the bat..what's your definition of each and how they differ and are the same??

Likewise you can have a good friend, who you don't have sex with, and you get along with really well. But I would argue there is always some level of reserve, or holding back that is always present. Even with good friends, they probably don't really understand YOU at any fundamental level. Or they understand you, but only so far and within a certain context.

Now, let's say you have a FRIEND (i.e. no sex), who loves you, understands you, and accepts you FOR WHO YOU REALLY ARE, and you feel the same for them. I would argue that physical sex is almost moot in this rare case. I would further suggest that there is probably some external barrier preventing sex b/t such a couple (and they are, make no mistake), it being such a natural expression of such emotions. The reason is that there is already SEX OF THE MIND, which is sooo much more powerful. If you find this, you'd best not screw it up w/insecure manipulation games, is all I'm saying.

So, no, the sex isn't that importan, Nomas. Because its already there. I hope this makes sense, its hard to put into words...

Yeah, that was pretty much my conclusion too, indi. Sex is not that important, hence, not that big a deal, hence, not an issue to me.

BUT...to most people it is. Whether it's just been beaten into our brains now because it's how we were taught and now we're used to viewing it and the reasoning behind it is what we choose to champion, though there are competing theories just as valid and just as unprovable (matters of opinion).

So there are those who say "Sex is something you want to share exclusively with your "lover". Blah, blah, blah...

To me what's important is that conection you described in one of the cases..where you like each other for who you really are and you could care less about anything else. Sex is irrelevant..even if you don't have it with one another. But I can see the opposing argument where it's that much bigger if you do it with this person you love in this way. But so is anything else, for that matter: Kissing, hugging, hell, having a conversation. But sex being so pleasurable and requiring another body to do it..well, we can distort things or assign levels of importance as we se fit.

But back to the friends thing I promised I'd talk about: Maybe here I am being the "traditional man", but if I see any girl I find attractive, my imagination is off to the races. If I'm in constant contact with an attractive female, I will probably day-dream some romantic scenarios with her a few times a day. If I pass her down the hall with her short skirt and sexy legs, I'll probably think to myself "Boy, I'd like to hit that". Do I act on it? Do I try to sleep with every girl I would sleep with because they fit the bill as far as physical attraction?

No.

Maybe girls see it differently. Maybe they see a man they find attractive and never have the slightest daydream about romance with the man. I wouldn't know.

That being said, I don't think that I couldn't have a friendship with a woman I find attractive. Say I got a girl and my best friend has a good looking girl. Good looking to me, anyway. Do you think I can't be friends with this girl? Of course I can be friends with her. Does this mean I won't have the slightest slip of the mind and picture her naked? Hell no. You bet I'll think stuff up IN MY HEAD. I wouldn't act on it.

It's Harry met Sally again. You can have a friendship as long as you control your actions. I don't think it's misleading to where you're faking a frienship and really wanthing to **** her. No. Again, I don't know if it's a man thing but you can have a great frienship quite independantly of wanting to sleep with a girl who'll roll with the boys.

I can be anybody's friend, and if I happen to find you attractive, it won't affect my frienship with you in the least bit.

If my romantic feelings toward you grow and I'd like you to feel the same way, yeah, I may have to play the game a little bit to get a clue as to what you feel. If I see no reciprocation, I continue the frienship and seek romance elsewhere.

That last paragraph was to give you some material to challenge my views, indi...Tag, you're it.

And Gypsy..yeah, my theory was one for relationships in general, not just boy/girl relationships.

[Tone]

Uh huh.



__________________

[whaywardj]

Oh, gad. One of those long, quotes-in-text ones. Wait a minute, nomas. I gotta get up to speed here.

[whaywardj]

Alright. First, I'm taking exception in technical grounds. You say sex is the "only thing" that "separates" good friends from lovers. Sometimes, your good friend is also your lover and there's no separating the two. As far as sex being the only thing distinguishes your lover from your good friend, I have to ask: What about the emotional connections you have with your lover? You cannot mean that they're identical to those you have with your friend. So sex is NOT the "only thing" which makes a distinction. (Unless you really believe what you said and YOU do have identical emotional bonds with BOTH your friends and lovers....which would make for some pretty confusing appointment books, I'd think...and DIS-appointnments). Example in point: so-called FWBs.

Then I take exception on grounds of implication. To say that sex is the only thing that distingushes a friend from a lover is to imply that ****ing is all that elevates a person to the status of lover. That is patently false.

IMO

[indigosoul]

Nope, not conducting an experiment...

1. A stimulus (also called perturbation) is applied: the appearance of the oncoming stranger
2. A result is observed: he's too fat, her ears too big, his eyes too close together

IF deemed abnormal, make a comment, ELSE return to 1.

Sounds pretty scientific, doesn't it? But all it is is an explanation to behavior, much in the way of computer programming.

I'm not conducting experiments here..I'm making observations and it decides how I behaver.

No, I still disagree w/you. The above counterexample is more like how a Naturalist would behave. YOUR original example is more like Experimental science. You ARE conducting an experiment. No different from the guy who adds something to the petri dish to watch the cells wriggle... for the following reason:

The distinction b/w observational science (like a naturalist), is that conclusions are made from observations WITHOUT perturbing the system (e.g. fat guy) and Experimental science, where a stimulus is applied and a result observed (e.g. your example). This is by definition manipulation, and is what you have been describing. You are NOT an impartial observer, you are CONTROLLING the amount of interest YOU show & observing the result… the stimulus COMES FROM YOU. AND what you do next is a function of the result you get. Unlike the “fat guy” case, where you are more like a Naturalist; you haven’t added anything to the system and the status quo is preserved. Unless you then CHOOSE to say something... in which case you then make the system experimental.

So I still see it as manipulation. Now, whether this is okay in the case of our "friends" is a different question. You seem to be saying it is, especially considering the consequences, and maybe you're right and I'm just a control freak. But I would still want it acknowledged... tho maybe later would be okay once the relationship was more equal. Hmmm. Seem to be backpedaling here... It just SEEMS so insulting to me...

[indigosoul]

If my romantic feelings toward you grow and I'd like you to feel the same way, yeah, I may have to play the game a little bit to get a clue as to what you feel. If I see no reciprocation, I continue the frienship and seek romance elsewhere.

That last paragraph was to give you some material to challenge my views, indi...Tag, you're it.

I hear you. The key here is "I'd LIKE YOU to feel the same way". Manipulation to acheive the desired outcome. Or... oh, okay, maybe you say the game isn't to produce new feelings, but to tease out (what might be?) existing ones...? "to get a clue what you feel", in your example. Well, still manipulation in my book, but puts a different flavour to it. Tho I suppose you could argue you're not manipulating anything, simply uncovering what's already there. I guess since I seem to be using a lot of science analogies, the equivalent would be "dissection" to uncover what's underneath. Are we finding a common language yet?

Damn, it would still be easier if everyone was just upfront about what they are thinking/feeling, huh Nomas? This example is a special case, anyway; I still think your behavioural method is best used on ppl who don't really know each other that well.

[whaywardj]

And, finally, they get to the real rub. Espistemology. How do you know what you know? Am I uncovering hidden knowledge? Or am I creating new knowledge? Is it knowledge at all? Or just data?

Most often expressed in love relationships by such phrases as, "You're not saying what you really feel"; "That's what you say, but that's not what you really mean"; "I though I knew you; I guess I don't." And other various and sundry.

Hence the TREMENDOUS need for mutual trust.

NEXT!

[indigosoul]

And, finally, they get to the real rub. Espistemology. How do you know what you know? Am I uncovering hidden knowledge? Or am I creating new knowledge? Is it knowledge at all? Or just data?

Most often expressed in love relationships by such phrases as, "You're not saying what you really feel"; "That's what you say, but that's not what you really mean"; "I though I knew you; I guess I don't." And other various and sundry.

Hence the TREMENDOUS need for mutual trust.

NEXT!

Ha! Ya, right again W. But so what does one do when one KNOWS (and I mean this absolutely) that the partner really ISN'T saying exactly what they feel... or worse you know they are lying to themselves... how does one help them?!

[whaywardj]

"You can lead a horse to water..."

[indigosoul]

"You can lead a horse to water..."

Well and so. And you can try shocking them w/the cattle prod, I suppose.

You say that mutual trust is very important. Agreed. But what's the criteria for that trust?! Honesty, right? So how does one establish/maintain trust w/o honesty from one or both of the partners... And don't ppl have different criteria for honesty? Personally, I'm highly verbal/communicative. I tend to say what I mean. But some ppl are more action-based (strong, silent, "always there for you" types), right? And isn't this a big difference (generally) b/t male & female communication styles? Has anyone ever attempted to explain HOW to bridge that gap?! I'm asking for myself, but also as relates to my issue of the "manipulation" involved in Nomas' question. Distasteful way of running and/or beginning a relationship IMO...

Lots of potential topic offshoots in this one...

[whaywardj]

I have to stop at your first premise. Honesty is not required for trust. An absence of harm is. How many times have you trusted someone who's been dishonest with you simply because they never did anything you knew of to harm you? What you're talking about is disclosure, which more involves forgiving. Not trust.

[whaywardj]

"Lots of potential topic offshoots in this one..."

What? You a frustrated orchestrator?

[indigosoul]

I have to stop at your first premise. Honesty is not required for trust. An absence of harm is.

Wait, this is important, and i don't think i quite get this... Are you saying that you think that someone who is unfaithful to their spouse is trustworthy if they don't tell?! Because it doesn't hurt the other partner b/c they don't know (what they don't know can't hurt them?!).

This would satisfy your "absence of harm" but NOT my "honesty" criteria, but, ooooh this does NOT agree w/me, no sir!

[indigosoul]

"Lots of potential topic offshoots in this one..."

What? You a frustrated orchestrator?

Ha, ha... i think (?!)