On Platonic Friendships
In my article “Men: We Need to Learn How to Talk about Rejection”, I had a respondent let me know of her dislike of of the term “friendzone”, thinking it sexist and misogynist. In particular, she commented on the idea that men shouldn’t feel like they “deserve sex” or romance. I responded by saying that a man’s feelings are more complicated than that. The interaction was for good, however, because she led me into thinking about platonic relationships, and men’s complex feelings towards them. This article has arisen from that conversation.
***
Men cannot just be friends with girls. When a boy meets a girl, his first thought is “would I date?” and that thought never truly leaves him, no matter how long he manages a lasting platonic relationship with her. When I say men cannot just be friends with girls, I am not saying men cannot be friends with girls. I am saying men cannot just be friends with girls, as if men could treat a girl as a friend the way he treats a guy as a friend, as just a simple friend with no ulterior stressors prickling in his head. The idea that a guy can be totally comfortable with a girl in the platonic sense is a comforting one, but it is a myth. The romantic tension is always there.
When a guy meets another guy, his first thought is “is this dude a cool guy? Would I want to hang out with him?” If the first impression yields the affirmative, he will seek friendship without worry, treating him as another bro that he can play video games, argue politics, and get drinks with. Most of all, the friendship is risk-free – the expectation is and has always been as friends, so there’s no need for the guy to push harder than the relationship yields organically. Contrast that with the first question upon meeting a girl – “would I date?” There are only three answers, but really there are only two answers.
1. “Yes.”
2. “No, but I’m interested in being friends with her for now.”
3. “No.”
If the answer is “No,” the relationship cuts off there. Or say the girl grows on him after she presses, turning the “No” into a “we’ll just be friends.” The problem is that in a boy’s head, “we’ll just be friends for now” is never set in stone. If a guy thinks this way initially, it means he’s putting off a hard “yes” for a more cautious approach. But see, that means he’ll continue to be thinking about the question. The question will always linger in his head in every future interaction he has with this girl. Every time, he has to continually justify to himself why he “isn’t interested.”
So, if a platonic friendship begins, there are two potential tensions unique to platonic friendships that are not found in guy-to-guy friendships. The first is if the guy answers “Yes” – then the tension stems from the disparity between what he desires (a dating relationship) and what he currently has (a friendship). The second is if the guy answers: “just friends for now” – then the tension stems from his continued rationalization of why he’s choosing “just friends for now” as opposed to “Yes”. Either way, both tensions bring about the same kind of romantic stressor in the guy’s head.
This romantic tension can only be resolved by the implementation of heuristics – basically, “rules-of-thumb” that govern his decision-making. The guy eliminates the stressors in the friendship by way of compartmentalizing the girl into a single rule or role. For example, if the guy answers the first question in the affirmative, he might simplify the disparity into “well she’s just out of my league” or “she’s just not that into me.” If a guy gives the second answer, the heuristic may be “she’s like a sister to me” or “I’m not physically attracted to her.”
Even when one or the other party is in a relationship, the same heuristics apply: in the first case, it’s “she has a boyfriend”, whereas in the second case, it’s “I have a girlfriend.” Again, these are simple statements that disarm the tension inside the guy’s head telling him over and over again why he is, in fact, content with the situation at hand.
And yet anyone can recognize the natural problem arising from this heuristics-based approach found not only in relationships, but also in all kinds of decisions made every day. Girls aren’t that simple. They can’t be reduced to one statement, and yet, for the sake of the guy’s sanity and resolution of his psychological incongruence, they are. As long as the girl sticks to the heuristic, the boy can remain fine friends with her, even close friends with her, but never totally comfortable. Always a little on edge, never able to totally be himself, simply because the question lingers in the back of his head every time he sees her. The heuristic is akin to an anesthetic – takes away most of the stress and feeling, but never removes the tumor itself.
But what happens when the girl, being her own free actor and complex individual, runs against the devised heuristic invented by the boy? In his studies, Stanford psychologist Carl Rogers talks about incongruence: the mental pain caused by a sharp contrast between the subject’s view of the world and the event at hand. When that girl begins to act in an inconsistent manner, the boy’s mental framework surrounding his friendship with the girl enters into crisis. Take a boy who has resolved to stay friends with a girl because “she’s not that into me anyway.” Then he gets a couple flirtatious signs from her, and he is ruined. Same for the boy whose rationale for friendship was “she has a boyfriend,” just to hear that she has broken up. That man is ruined.
Carl Rogers, PsychologistDuring the time of crisis, the entire platonic friendship is threatened, because its very foundation – the heuristic – has dissolved. Suddenly the question again comes to the forefront, and this time, the man can’t answer. In this moment of crisis, the man desires again to simplify. But in order to simplify, he cannot take the current perspective on the relationship as is, because the current perspective ran under a specific heuristic that has now shattered. In order to develop a new heuristic, the boy must develop a new perspective. And in order to develop a new perspective, the boy must take proactive action to radically change the nature of the relationship so that a new framework can be built off of fresh ground. You don’t plant the same crop again in the same soil.
At this point I’m sure, if you’re a girl, you are familiar. I’m sure you have been the object of many a proactive action – a confession of a crush, an abrupt end in communication, a senseless, dumb argument, or a radical change in personality. The proactive action may come suddenly, completely unexpectedly, or rather awkwardly. But men don’t engage in the proactive action for the girl’s sake – they do it for their own.
Naturally, the girl meets the proactive action with confusion, surprise, and often rejection. But – and this comes to the heart of all that I’m writing about – if she wants the friendship to continue, she should offer him at least something he can latch onto. She cannot attempt to make things the way they were. Those days are gone in the boy’s head. Out is the old heuristic; now he is trying to make a new one. But just as the first heuristic was created from the actions of both parties, so is this one. If the girl makes no attempt to reframe or restructure the relationship in any different way, the boy questions whether it is worth it to keep trying to be friends with someone who doesn’t take his needs into consideration. He enters disillusionment and leaves the relationship altogether. This is the way most platonic friendships fail.
In no way am I arguing one shouldn’t engage in platonic friendships. I’m just attempting to explain that there is a degree of difficulty in maintaining them that is unique. I am explaining that the underlying romantic tension behind them cannot be easily dismissed. I am trying to build a better dialogue in a world sick with dishonest and divisive rhetoric on gender and relationships. And I am trying to start with the reality.
That being said, I believe strongly in the value of civil disagreement, so if you would like to expand, qualify, or reject my statements here, I’d love your formal opinion through a Letter to the Author, found here. I’d appreciate anecdotes and stories pertaining to this topic as well. As long as there is thought and intellect behind it, I will likely publish it.
https://www.facebook.com/thekennethxu/
