Are men ever actually friends with a woman without wanting to bone her?

Are men ever actually friends, like good, intimate friends, with a woman who is not unattractive to them without wanting to bone her? I kind of don't believe that they are. Maybe they never do it, but the POSSIBILITY is always part of the value of the relationship.

― A healthy weekly ration of cheetos and stoner metal (Laurel), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:14 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Sure.

you missed a key part of laurel's post in the thread title

I agree with Laurel on this 100%,

you missed a key part of laurel's post in the thread title

― Local Garda, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:17 AM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

tryna be pithy

I think so.
(and surely we must have done this before?)

Or maybe just Pythy.

i'd like to think that me & laurel are pretty good friends overall, though less so in the past year maybe, but i have never wanted to bone her despite finding her to be, as they say, "v v pretty."

Thanks, ian!! <3 you, boo.

Oh come now I gather people will read the post before responding xp u see!

i have attractive female friends i do not want to sleep with!

^ I mean sure I think it's possible but I think that that is the exception and not the norm.

some men are sleazier than others.

Okay, I'll admit there can be exceptions. But I think it happens a lot less often than a lot of men AND women would like to believe.

Also it's possibly my chief complaint about Ghost World and Lost in Translation: that it's not possible to separate the potential sexual allure from the friendship, or at least you have so little control whether the viewer interprets it that way that I have to assume you know a certain percentage of people will assume there's a sexual component, and that you intend them to assume that.

As a working stage director, touring musician, blah blah, over the years, and I've made close friendships with other artists who are women. Often. And I've never been involved with an actress I've directed, never schtupped the headliner. And yet could objectively find them attractive, and might spend hours working intimately with them, developing a couple-like friendship, without feeling any urge to get sexually involved.

Sure they are. Whether or not the possibility of boning has been decisively rejected earlier on in the friendship relation - which is possible - isn't really key. I'm still best friends with three girls, whom I've respectively actually boned, didn't but wished I did and declared that wish, and didn't wish for it to happen at all. All three of these very different situations resulted in the same: an actual friendship, no desires held back.

ILX 2009: No Desires Held Back

This question is kind of silly because the "find not unattractive" thing makes it seem like we're asking if men are ever actually friends with women they want to bone without wanting to bone them?

I am friends with quite a few girls who I would describe as beautiful or pretty but I am not attracted to really. eg people I have nothing in common with interest wise but enjoy chatting to and hanging out with, though am sure a relationship would never work. But I suppose the question is would a guy sleep with a girl in this situation, who fucking knows. I mean you might have sex with someone as a one off.

Can I ask are girls ever actually friends with a guy they find not unattractive without wanting to bone him?

probably a good thing that i've never been close friends (as opposed to acquaintance you see fairly often and enjoy talking to without ever really taking a deeper interest in each other's lives) with any girls i crushed on

haha ian xp

I really dislike the term "bone".

^^ yes

more of a poppage man?

not to be mean or anything, but the attitude that all men want to bone their female friends shows a certain conceit on the part of the woman, does it not? "I'm super hot, so this guy who seems friendly and not threatening must totally want to hit it."

smash? nail? they're all kinda nasty xp

better question might be: "are men ever actually friends with a woman without seeing her first and foremost as a woman?"

Yeah - mainly friends of wife and female relatives.

Well, the question is also kind of stemming from conversations relating to the Would Smash thread, basically that guys wd hypothetically smash any pretty girl who would smash them back. Whereas I would not smash almost anyone except a few specific people that I find attractive for what are most likely to be non-physical reasons. Obv is all anecdotal. But it was presented by several guys as a fact of life with a Y chromosome. So...

Schtup?

http://badpress.homestead.com/files/PitCartoon1.gif

I enjoy intercourse with all my female friends.

think laurel is otm in original post but say offtm to simplified thread title.

xp to laurel: i'm pretty sure no one posts pictures of their friends on the would smash thread.

Based on my experience as a guy and what I've observed in the relationships of others, the answer is NO. Sexual desire always exists on the fringes of such relationships. Sometimes it's front and center, and sometimes it's waaaaay off in the peripheral, but it's always there, at least in potential.

...With the caveat that, in the long run, the perception of "attractiveness" can fade into something like asexual friendship. That is, she can still be hot, but you've known her through so many years, through so much shit, that you don't have any remaining desire to actually be with her, though you still dig her as a friend.

Two questions:

1) Is there anything wrong with this?
2) Is it the same for girls?

erm...I feel like Tuomas posting this but I have to say casual sex doesn't particularly make me feel great, or at least yeah, I need to be attracted to the person mentally to really enjoy it. Just for the record I amn't saying this to try and seem like a good person or something, I often wish it wasn't the case.

so then a guy wouldn't be friends with a girl he isn't attracted to?

see i would say thinking about this literally as "wanting intercourse" is a bit too blunt for what's really going on...there is certainly an eros at play in all relationships but this is not to say anyone would really desire to follow through with actual sex.

to be gendered at all is to introduce this tension into all relationships with the opposite gender...

erm...I feel like Tuomas posting this but I have to say casual sex doesn't particularly make me feel great, or at least yeah, I need to be attracted to the person mentally to really enjoy it. Just for the record I amn't saying this to try and seem like a good person or something, I often wish it wasn't the case.

― Local Garda, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 1:35 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

isn't this the opposite of tuomas tho? that or he just seems to like lots of people.

i mean, this almost reminds me of a professor i had who condescendingly seemed to imply that all male friendships were somehow coded homosexuality.

x-post yeah you're right I guess, I just meant it might appear faux-naive.

(lots of this already said in xposts, but anyway...)

the "who is not unattractive" part is sort of key here, because "attractive" can mean a whole lot of things. if it means "sexually attractive," then the question sort of becomes, "can a man be friends with a woman he finds sexually attractive without being sexually attracted to her," which pretty much answers itself. but what somebody finds sexually attractive is a pretty personal and specific thing, so somebody could easily be friends with someone they knew was, say, conventionally good-looking without actually being very attracted to them. and in any case, the mere fact of finding someone sexually attractive doesn't mean that every time you see them you immediately go into sex-fantasy land. it's just one of those things that sort of registers somewhere, for the most part noted but not dwelt upon.

and i guess, what does "wanting to bone her" mean? does it mean, you sit there when you're talking with your friend and in some part of your mind you're thinking "i'd really like to bone her"? or does it mean just a general awareness that this is somebody that, in the right circumstances, you'd be sexually interested in? anyway, i have lots of friends who are women, some of whom i personally find more sexually attractive than others, all of whom i find "attractive" in some way or i wouldn't be friends with them (same is true of my male friends, obviously), none of whom i spend any time actively thinking about boning.

so if the question is, "should i, as a woman, assume that all my guy friends are actively thinking about sexing me every time we sit down to have a beer," i'd say, probably not -- or at least, not much more likely than you are to be thinking the same thing about them. otoh, i am not a designated spokesman for my gender, so who knows.

No, really: why is this very common question always phrased this way? Why do we always wonder about his desire to bone her, and not vice-versa?

man after an hour on both of these threads I feel like I've just run a marathon

because women do not feel sexual desire, contenderizer. DUH!

except for expensive pairs of shoes!

(a female friend of mine some years ago had another male friend that she was thinking of propositioning for a one-night stand -- she wasn't interested in him relationship-wise, but wanted to get laid and thought he'd be fun -- and asked me if he'd be freaked out by the proposition. i didn't know the guy, so i had no idea, but i told her that at the very least she wasn't going to damage his ego.)

Why do we always wonder about his desire to bone her, and not vice-versa?

just look at the internet and how 99% of sex-related content is from a male perspective. i was gonna say on the other thread there is even this stigma about the term '18 year old girl' now where you feel like that's enough on it's own to set some guys minds off (type it into google and see what comes up perhaps).

uh, the top results are '18 year old girl wrecks 800hp Corvette!' and one about gang rape :(

Well, I'm only asking from my point of view, really, and from my point of view I DON'T think idly about having sex w my male friends -- probably for a lot of reasons, some of which are self-fulfilling. I find a lot of them "attractive" in an aesthetic way, but for Someone Else, not for me.

I just feel like lately I've been picking up on a lot of instances/descriptions of the male experience as being basically about imagining having sex with any woman you don't actually find UNattractive.

Instances and descriptions from dudes that I know and like, by the way. I'm not basing this on popular movies or Details Magazine.

Do I want to sleep with all of my (many many) attractive female friends? No.

Do I imagine what it might be like? Yes, of course.

And I have also imagined what it might be like to sleep with unattractive ladies, male friends, goats, etc.

I also imagine what it would be like to drive off a cliff. But I've never done it.

what about your mom?

^^^ this! But interest in porn != interest in "eros" (sex, romance, feelins, whatever). Still, OTM about "18 year old girl" being porn code, and therefore likely to trigger all sorts of weird responses -- in people as well as google.

Okay, NOT that. "this" to timezilla's prev. post way upthread.

chick here. there are very few male friends i have that i wouldnt bone.

wanting to bone is a pretty automatic instinctual kind of thing that exists sorta independently of (occasionally overlapping with) how i relate to other ppl -- one of only many factors -- sometimes im interested in somebody else and i meet someone new who, in some circumstances id be interested in, but in this case lets just be friends bcuz im trying to become involved with this other person, etc etc etc basically there are a million other variables at work here, just like anything else. i have female friends im friends with who, given the right circumstances, i would be interested, but considering the reality of life and the situations we're in, getting involved would be more problem than its worth

also im attracted to a lot of girls but im pretty sure hooking up w/ a fair # of them would be a mistake for whatever reason -- lots of ppl are crazy fyi

But EVERYTHING is in weird porn code!! Are you kidding me? There are like 39823324892043423490 combinations of perfectly normal words I can't even say around a lot of men I know, because all but the MOST "cerebral" ones will either snigger openly or at least pause before speaking.

This question is kind of silly because the "find not unattractive" thing makes it seem like we're asking if men are ever actually friends with women they want to bone without wanting to bone them?

― Local Garda, Monday, January 5, 2009 7:27 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ya^ and obv wanting to bone is a complex set of circumstances - i mean it could be like 10% want to bone on a nice ass sort of level - such a mild wanting to bone that youd never act on it and prob in fact rebuff advances by the other party - so is that wanting to or not

in answer to the question i do have female friends i do not want to bone - i have those i do want to bone - those i have boned - those i wish i hadnt boned - those i regret not boning when i had the chance - all sorts of friends really

btw When Harry Met Sally is a shitty movie

wanting to bone is a pretty automatic instinctual kind of thing that exists sorta independently of (occasionally overlapping with) how i relate to other ppl

haha realized this could be totally misinterpreted to be really weird -- i just mean that the thing about being a conscientious human being with self-control means, you know, that you control instinctual impulses to chase after every hotty you see -- this should be obvious cuz tons of ppl end up in monogomous relationships and have female friends. borderline challop really

"what about your mom?"

I never drove her off a cliff either.

Well, I'm only asking from my point of view, really, and from my point of view I DON'T think idly about having sex w my male friends -- probably for a lot of reasons, some of which are self-fulfilling. I find a lot of them "attractive" in an aesthetic way, but for Someone Else, not for me.

― Laurel

But that's the thing. You don't really find those guys attractive. And if you did really and truly find them attractive, wouldn't you at least occasionally feel the pull? Maybe you wouldn't think feverish sex thoughts at them all the time, but when the attraction is there and real, you'd feel something, right?

I think it's the same for men, no different, except that they (perhaps) tend to be less discriminating in who they're attracted to.

Boning means risking knocking up or getting the clap. Going down on a friend, however...

except that they (perhaps) tend to be less discriminating in who they're attracted to.

gasp!

haha these threads are really fertile for challops

Maybe I'm not communicating well at all, but the "less discriminating" thing is really my whole point.

i think that there's an AC song about this very topic ...

There's big difference between 'would not be physically repulsed if forced to bone at gunpoint' and 'wanting to bone'.

frisky

I have mostly male friends, and I wouldnt want to bone *any* of them, it'd be like sleeping with my brother!

Thats why they are FRIENDS. its not rocket science.

And this is regardless of what I think they look like physically - some of em are what I could regard good looking, some arent - but it is so irrelevant.

I totally have attractive female friends I would not want to have sex with, including one who for some reason is a close enough friend that the thought kinda grosses me out.

I have attractive female friends who, even when I was single, were so firmly married/taken/off-limits that I'd never have really even thought much about the theoretical possibility of having sex with them (and if I did, the result likely would have been "well yeah, she's fairly attractive").

I have attractive female friends who (even when I was single, etc.) I would think were attractive and having sex with them would probably be an enjoyable experience, but for various reasons having to do with friendship and social dynamics and whatever else I would not "want" to actually have sex with them.

That "want" becomes pretty ambiguous, eventually, is possibly part of my point here. There's no good word here for "realizes that would be objectively fun but no interest in it happening in the real world."

wankbank?

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr251/mookieproof/bone.jpg?t=1231204041

Maybe I'm not communicating well at all, but the "less discriminating" thing is really my whole point.

― Laurel

Isn't it some kind of lame truism that men are less discriminating, though? That, biologically speaking, it's sort of the male's job NOT to discriminate, but to spread his seed as widely as the wind will take it? And that it's the female's job, in turn, to discriminate? Basically, that it's a guys job to say, "y'wanna?" and a girl's job to say, "um, no." Or yes...

That's a timeworn argument, but there seems to be at least some truth in it. In fact, it eems strange that anyone would be surprised by any of it. Governs and explains so much of the conventional wisdom regarding differences in male-female sexual behavior.

in other words, good luck to you ladies--you need it

I have mostly male friends

most of the women i know would probably say this too, which is a whole 'nother wormcan (obv no-one should feel weird if the majority of their friends are the opposite sex, but you still feel the notion that this defies convention or tradition in society) but one which must affect how people feel about the question hugely

That "want" becomes pretty ambiguous, eventually, is possibly part of my point here. There's no good word here for "realizes that would be objectively fun but no interest in it happening in the real world."

― nabisco

OTM. Most guys (it seems to me) think a lot about what might be fun, under other circumstances, under imaginary circumstances. Even about what might be fun to think about, but in no circumstance to actually do. These thinkings involve friends, neighbors, strangers on the bus, whoever. But they're a far cry from "wanting to bone" in any meaninful sense.

sometimes they're "not wanting to bone"

bus people so hott

Also, when someone is a close enough friend that she confides in you honestly about her relationships, sometimes there are red flags there that make you glad never to be involved on more than a friendship level (gals must feels this way about their guy friends sometimes as well).

do men actually ever take a bus journey without wanting to bone everyone on it?

bangbus

haven't read thread but being in a close relationship has worked wonders for non-bone-want of female friends (even if they're pretty much all ladies i WANTED to bone at some point in the past)

psychosexual barrier lol blah innit

in other words, good luck to you ladies--you need it

― omar little

I know you're just joking, but I'm genuinely baffled by the idea that this super-basic difference in the way males and females are programmed to "use" sex (men blithely offering to any interested party, females carefully selecting from among the available offers) is a problem of some sort. It's the way things are, the way they've always been. I hate to use the word, but it's the way things are "supposed" to be, for very good reasons. Why on earth should it trouble anyone?

Yeah I'm always eyeballing people when I run errands around town and stuff.

non bone want

uh you are starting to be full of shit, contenderizer

do men actually ever take a bus journey without wanting to bone everyone on it?

thank god there are no humpback bridges in E5

do men actually ever take a bus journey without wanting to bone everyone on it?

― Local Garda

lolling hard here.

Fuck this shit. I have loads of dead gorgeous m + f friends who I don't want to bone. End of.

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Bone-Thugs-N-Harmony-Poster-C10005859.jpeg&usg=AFQjCNF6Ldhv-s-hUXMMgnZRhdB42f4I6w

guys you know how it is...you're walking down the street, and you see this dead female dog on the ground. it has these hot glasses on...

Sorry but I don't even get how this can be a discussion.

Bone Bus Tours
The guided tour Bone Bus route stops are as follows:

* Parking lot behind Lantern Lane -- Bus boarding area.
* West End Ave. -- Giannotti Studios, where the Hadrosaurus foulkii sculpture is being created.
* Maple Ave. -- 1858 excavation site of the Hadrosaurus fossil. Butch Brees, who maintains the Hadrosaurus park site, and David Orleans, retired from the National Park Service, will be on hand to discuss the find that was a major milesone in the history of dinosaur discovery and is now a National Historic Landmark.
* Kings Highway -- Haddonfield Memorial High School, dropping off for the scheduled times of the "Rollicking' Dinosaur Revue."
* Lincoln & Walnut St. -- Markeim Art Center drop offs for the Children's Dinosaur Art exhibit.
* Lantern Lane parking lot -- bus route ends where it began.

kings highway amirite or amirite

you have been married for like 10 years dude xpost to AA

bonin island is inside all of us

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/images3/boninislands.jpg

Okay! So, we've got people who are amazed that either side of the argument is even a discussion. Do we move to a new game board now? I've never been quoted to start a thread before, not sure how this works tbh.

But LJ even when I was single I wasn't on some horny prowl all the time.

maybe u r a chick tho

Is any guy here saying they aren't, at least occasionally, sexually attracted to a random stranger, if only in a passing instant? You've never been struck by someone at a show, or in a checkout lane, or on the bus? Come on, it's human to feel sexual attraction here or there.

I may be full of shit, but it's easy to take pot-shots at the idea of some freak perving out on the bus, and that's not what I'm talking about. If I really am full of shit, help me out -- show me the way.

I have seen some really hot chicks on the bus.

Granted AA! Before I was in a good relationship I was something of a horndog when it came to girls I was intimate enough with to consider friends. I'm extremely happy to have moved on from that. I think (hope) everyone does. Your case was a little different seeing as you could non-bone-want or bone-want all your friends rather than half (or less than half) of them. Had it easy. :-P

The 100% determinist stuff is BS, in my view. I suspect that's also what horseshoe was calling you out on.

other factors this depends on: how much experience the guy has (would suck to be the one who, every single time he befriends a girl he finds attractive, ends up stressing over whether or not to take it further out of some inferiority complex and other stuff), how generally secure and well adjusted they are

WHOAH I WIN. MY THREAD HAS A REPLACEMENTS VIDEO ON IT.

I can't even decide what I think about this thread anymore, horny prowl, not-bone-want, bonin island...srsly

the biggest most important point on this thread is that nobody is working from the same defn of "wanting to bone her" or "actually friends with" nor can a workable universal definition be easily found.

the part that's full of shit is where you rationalize some evolutionary psychology mumbo-jumbo as the way things are "supposed to be"--the validity of your take on how men and women are programmed to use sex aside, there's no designer who made things that way and even if your take were true, there's no reason why that would have to be the way it was forever and ever amen.

xposts oh Laurel got there first

the determinist stuff reminds me of the creatine addicted idiot i went to grad school with who used to tell the female profs about how women are attracted to big burly guys because "ITS EVOLUTION!" and was serious. they were usu rendered actually speechless.

Okay! So, we've got people who are amazed that either side of the argument is even a discussion.

― Laurel

Eek. Sorry if I was condescending earlier, Laurel.

The 100% determinist stuff is BS, in my view. I suspect that's also what horseshoe was calling you out on.

― also Laurel

Yeah, I get that, and I know I was overstating the case. But I don't see any reason to dismiss that kind of thinking out of hand, however old-fashioned or simplistic it may seem. Though it can't be applied to every person or situation, it's sometimes good at illuminating the general lay of the land.

the determinist stuff reminds me of the creatine addicted idiot i went to grad school with who used to tell the female profs about how women are attracted to big burly guys because "ITS EVOLUTION!" and was serious. they were usu rendered actually speechless.

― negotiable

Yeah, okay, but I'd like to think I'm walking the edge with a bit more finesse than that. Perhaps not, if the response I'm getting is any indication...

just reminded me is all. not implying you're anywhere near the depths that guy plumbed.

I can't even decide what I think about this thread anymore, horny prowl, not-bone-want, bonin island...srsly

i guess my decision to not post the lyrics to that anal cunt song was the right one, then o_0

contenderizer you're cool is what i mean to say

i guess my decision to not post the lyrics to that anal cunt song was the right one, then o_0

is that "Are Men Ever Actually Friends with a Woman Without Wanting to Bone her? If not, You're Gay"?

ay fyi steven pinker is full of shit and rape is not some kind of vestigal tail or whatever, in any event i have a lot of babes for friends who i am not actively trying to do it w/ and a lot of babes for friends that even if they begged me i probably would not, ok maybe i would, but most importantly i think treating people as tho they must follow some kind of biological imperative, i.e., all men want to do it w/ all attractive women, is basically just fucked-up and unrad and i will not stand for it

is that "Are Men Ever Actually Friends with a Woman Without Wanting to Bone her? If not, You're Gay"?

close enough

coincidentally with this thread I just learned about this asshole today:

http://dickmasterson.com/

Based on my own close male friendships throughout the years, I think that what contenderizer said is the most honest and OTM thing on the thread so far:

Based on my experience as a guy and what I've observed in the relationships of others, the answer is NO. Sexual desire always exists on the fringes of such relationships. Sometimes it's front and center, and sometimes it's waaaaay off in the peripheral, but it's always there, at least in potential.

...With the caveat that, in the long run, the perception of "attractiveness" can fade into something like asexual friendship. That is, she can still be hot, but you've known her through so many years, through so much shit, that you don't have any remaining desire to actually be with her, though you still dig her as a friend.

And yes, I do think that this can work both ways.

...there's no designer who made things that way and even if your take were true, there's no reason why that would have to be the way it was forever and ever amen.

― horseshoe

Agreed, on everything. That doesn't exactly refute the determinist BS, though -- only sets certain limits on its claim to Truth. Which is fine, I'm not trying to say that there can be no other way. But in this particular instance, the shopworn bio-determinst argument synchs up awfully damn well with centuries of CW from a variety of cultures, with my observation of the world around me, and even with my awareness of myself. So, while I'm wary of the political implications, I'm willing to give the idea a lot of creedence.

What are the negative consequences of accepting the determinist argument as at least partially valid?

but most importantly i think treating people as tho they must follow some kind of biological imperative, i.e., all men want to do it w/ all attractive women, is basically just fucked-up and unrad and i will not stand for it

― max

Max boils it down pretty well. The rejection of determinist BS is largely political. We don't want it to be true. We don't like the implications. It seems to excuse all sorts of intolerable shit. But I think this is the wrong way to respond. We can understand and accept the biological imperative without being dominated by it.

yah but what abt one of those movies where the best friends agree to get married if neither of them hav found someone by 35 and then it turns out they were in love the whole time

lol am i a bad person for scrolling thru that lyric page with half a smile on my face

(it's late, i'm tired)

i have female friends who are hot but since i'm taken i don't really think about it.

x-post women love those movies

men are just thinking "35? i'd bone her now dude"

i guess, contenderizer, i think when you lazily assent to the ev. psych. view of human sexuality you run the risk of naturalizing what's social about the gender disparity in sex. we don't know how women would behave sexually in a world without sexual violence and predation because that world doesn't exist, for example.

i don't really want to get into it, though; i hate this argument.

what biological imperative calls for steven pinker to cut his hair like this:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/StevenPinker_228x338.jpg

^unrad and i will not stand for it

can max ever actually mention stephen pinker without wanting to bone her?

what biological imperative calls for steven pinker to cut his hair like this:

― 8====D ------ ㋡ (max), Monday, January 5, 2009 7:54 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Misguided adherence to hairstyle aesthetics that were popular in his youth.

It is ludicrous to claim that because women are selective about whom they want to bone, that's a "basic difference" between the sexes! That is a basic thing that is the same between the sexes. Men have types they're attracted to, physically and personality-wise, just the same as women do. It's difficult to imagine a dude walking into a crowded bar or whatever, & literally being up for ballin' ANY of the women there. Maybe if he had just gotten out of prison or something.

Every straight woman out there has had the experience of being attracted to a guy who didn't return the attraction. I have too, so that's how I know I'm right. If this "law of nature" theory were true, I would NEVER HAVE BEEN REJECTED.

In my personal life, I'm generally very careful about being close friends with any woman that isn't my wife. In fact, when we meet new women, I'm generally much more interested in how well she gets along with Char, and not how well she gets along with me. At the moment, the women I'm probably closest too are significant others of best friends (and then they are more distanced, obv, than the best friend themselves). This isn't always considered, but generally works out that way. (Side point to side point: When we meet someone and she's all about hanging out with the guys when we talk about football, and ignoring the significant others when they cluster together on the other side of the room - I'm really peeved. I have no use for close female friends, and no interest.)

― Mordy, Monday, January 5, 2009 6:20 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ugh. while i get that it would be sketchy if you were married and hanging out with some hot female friend alone all the time, this attitude is off-putting.

guys only reject women if there is a big game on, or a wooly mammoth has entered the settlement

For the record I want to state that I have no position on the thread question and wanted to see where the chips would land if we gave it a thread of its own.

evolutionary psychLOLogy

I don't understand how this turned into "all dudes want to bang all ladies" because that's obv ridiculous and I don't think that was the point of the original comment at all.

It's always frustrating with a friend whom we do want to bone when she will only bone dudes who she would not want as a friend.

it sux when youd like to bone someone but they would NOT like to bone u

i want to hear a smoove r&b song called "I think we should Bone"

I'll also say Contenderizer's earlier point about (possibly asymmetrical) attraction existing at the periphery of friendships by default seems an interesting piece of social science, whereas the counterarguments seem to be "well I don't want to bang all MY female friends so this is dumb"

Tracy, what's off-putting about that?

Obv not Jordan Mordy but I two things about your post struck me as weird. 1) "I have no use for close female friends, and no interest" just sounds a little odd and strange and 2) why are the women clustering together on one side of the room? Does that happen a lot in yr social circle? I haven't really experienced that sort of thing since middle school!

cant imagine not having female friends -- i would probably be so much dumber without them

they are clustering cause doods are watching the game

who would i want to bone if i didnt have female friends

It's not super often, but sometimes the conversations will appeal to different groups and so we'll self-segregate. This generally happens at the end of a really long (4 hour) meal. Sorta a contemporary equivalent of a smoking room. Which isn't to say that we all have stereotypical gender interests (sports V. shopping, or whatever), but that sometimes different people want to talk about different things and it frequently becomes an evident gender separation.

As for (1), I'm curious why that's strange. I've had close female friends in the past, generally by coincidence. They were good people and I liked hanging out with them. But they didn't give me anything in friendship that my male friends couldn't offer. So with all things equal, why go and accumulate a bunch of opposite gender friends? If it's accidental, which I can relate to, that's fine. Sometimes you just get along really well with someone. But sometimes I met men that only hang out with women, or women that only hang out with men. And I don't understand why you'd do that.

Sorta a contemporary equivalent of a smoking room.

sounds like someone needs to change the smoking room into the boning room

yah is mordy saying here that he wants to BONE his male friends cause thats what i took from it

cant imagine not having female friends -- i would probably be so much dumber without them

I imagine this is somewhat tongue in cheek. I haven't noticed any intelligence difference between the women I know and the men I know. But I get the feeling something like this is at the heart of a lot of people who only hang out with opposite gender friends. (A woman friend once told me that she hates hanging out with women because they are too immature.) There's this belief that women/men makes better friends. That isn't my experience.

i hear they smoke cigars in the smoking rooms--we all know what Bubba Clinton taught us about cigars

i think we should bone now
there doesn't seem to be any dudez around

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the boning of our boning is the only sound

xpost to mordy

ppl prone to friend-type generalizations, esp. when they weren't tight with anyone of their own gender during their formative years (i speak from my own experience not suggesting anything about deej or anyone, cause i used to say stuff like that).

stuck a pin in your back bone

I imagine this is somewhat tongue in cheek. I haven't noticed any intelligence difference between the women I know and the men I know. But I get the feeling something like this is at the heart of a lot of people who only hang out with opposite gender friends. (A woman friend once told me that she hates hanging out with women because they are too immature.) There's this belief that women/men makes better friends. That isn't my experience.

― Mordy, Monday, January 5, 2009 8:35 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

not really about that -- more like i know dude's perspective, womans perspective not so familiar with

id say i have a good mix of male& female friends -- but i tend to become 'good friends' more easily w/ women i guess -- not really sure why that is

I am friends with lots of girls even though i know they would never bone with me, the want is of lesser importance imo

truthfully i enjoy having both male and female friends and get kinda annoyed if i get too much of one not enough of the other - also some but not all of my female friends id like to bone

Just don't bone man's best friend and you'll be fine.

conversely, give a dog a bone

Mookie did you just quote Archers of Loaf cause I'm pretty sure you did and I'm 100% sure that it was awesome.

i think when i go out drinking/partying/dancing or whatever going w/ chixx is way more fun, chillin on sundays watching the game shooting the shit & busting each others balls is more a dude thing, altho you know theres always exceptions to the 'rule'

otm xp

n/h xp

why do i keep opening this thread...

there's a chance that things will get weird
yeah that's a possibility

youve accidently bookmarked it and cant take the time to open bookmarks and delete them -- i do this all the time fwiw xp

it is because u want to bone yr female friends

:-) xxpost

poppage wheelie

only if shes ugly 173xpost

tautology btw kev

deej you are OTM back there tho usually i think that's because the dudes i know are singularly retarded about partying and dancing for them is like OH GOD EVASIVE MANEUVERS.

would it be cool to be friends with a 17 yr old girl and if so would you want to bone her y/n?

"Me and this hot high school girl are totally just friends -- no really"

would it be cool to be friends with a 17 yr old girl and if so would you want to bone her y/n?

― my fingers is a jellyfish (omar little), Monday, January 5, 2009 9:49 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i didnt mention this on the other thread but yes

yay let's make blanket generalizations about half of humanity again! because you know there are only TWO types of personalities in da world: ADAM CAROLLAS and the vagina-laden!!

otm

y

vagina gardens

I'm friends with women I don't want to (ahem) bone now, but I don't think I'm friends with any women I've never wanted to bone at least a little bit.

also there are trannies which is a subspecies of adam corolla

this is kind of like asking "do all gay people want to hook up because uh, they have a chance cuz, you know, they're GAY?"

i also thought the evolutionary biology BS was dated-in-a-distinctly-1950s-way even to scientists now ...aside from "PC reasons" or whatever. (though i'm sure the sexual revolution poked a lot of holes in whatever cred it once had, with the "females face evolutionary ADVANTAGES to exhibiting passive behavior, and are well-suited to making the nest nicer and are thus born to be BETTER at housework & cooking! it's BIOLOGY!")

vagina-laden: to be weighed down with vagina

would not bone

also, why is the evolutionary stuff only used to justify "men behaving badly" but can never explain anything about those marriages/pairings where women have the higher sex drive? or even highly-sexed "promiscuous" women int he first place? is it because all logic breaks down then and you'd have to term them genetic lol mutants or something?

btw how does one befriend one of these highly-sexed "promiscuous" women

i know one, its your mom

Let's consider this at tedious length, shall we?

The first problem word here: attractive.

A woman can be intellectually attractive, and a man will be drawn to converse with her about ideas. A woman can be physically attractive and then a man will be drawn to gaze upon her face and form. A woman can be sexually attractive, and then a man will want to do quite a number of things to her that most of us could list in loving detail (see: I Love TMI).

These attractive qualities can exist in varying amounts in any woman, along with a few others. It would be rare for a woman to be endowed with enough attractive qualities to make her a close and desireable friend and yet be bereft of the last-named one. If she has the last one in any degree, then there's going to be some level of sexual desire for her that is also present in the friendship.

So, I think we can safely start with the proposition that this is a rare occurance. Now we can consider the word: ever.

Now consider a woman who is quite advanced in age, while still retaining a fine mind and cheerful temperment. A younger man might very well find such a woman to have the sort of attractive qualities that make her a good friend and mentor, while not considering her sexually attractive. This, too, would be quite a rarity among relationships. But it is not an impossibility. QED.

Ergo, the answer is a qualified yes.

Next question.

max finds stephen pinker to be attractive in all those ways and more did u know that

i also thought the evolutionary biology BS was dated-in-a-distinctly-1950s-way even to scientists now ...aside from "PC reasons" or whatever. (though i'm sure the sexual revolution poked a lot of holes in whatever cred it once had, with the "females face evolutionary ADVANTAGES to exhibiting passive behavior, and are well-suited to making the nest nicer and are thus born to be BETTER at housework & cooking! it's BIOLOGY!")

― Vichitravirya_XI

wildly

also, why is the evolutionary stuff only used to justify "men behaving badly" but can never explain anything about those marriages/pairings where women have the higher sex drive? or even highly-sexed "promiscuous" women int he first place? is it because all logic breaks down then and you'd have to term them genetic lol mutants or something?

― Vichitravirya_XI

Not that there aren't arguments to be made against the sort of thing I was saying upthread...

That "wildly" wasn't supposed to be in quotes, just ital. Not that it matters...

We all have lots of friends of the opposite sex we don't want to bone. Even close ones. But when it comes to a best friend or close to it? I dunno, I think that kind of proximity to someone who is even vaguely attractive makes things hazy.

I don't think I want to bone my best friend (who I've known since I was 12), though I find her very attractive. We've kissed while drunk, and she once propositioned me (while drunk) - but I can't imagine the two of us actually having sex. OTOH, she's hot and in a lot of ways what I compare girls I do want to bone against...

hey u guys i think we should all cyber

asl

It is news to me that EB is such a universally "accepted," scientifically sound foundation to describe human social interactions that it can described as a "rule" that now has to be disproved...!

guys i think milo just came to a realization lol

(whatever the case, I'm pretty sure it had fallen out of mainstream favor by sociologists decades ago, and for cultural reasons in addition to just being too simplistic and reductive)

a realization bomb xp

>guys i think milo just came to a realization lol

lol we all know what milo is going to think of tonight when the vapo rub jelly comes out

If the question were put like so:

"Are men ever actually friends with a woman -- especially a woman who they would otherwise find more or less attractive -- without, at some point, thinking of her in a sexual way, if only for a moment?"

Then my answer would be "in most cases, no", though I'm sure there are some "yes" cases out there.

Obviously, "thinking of someone in a sexual way" != "wanting to bone her". It just means that the thought passes through one's mind, and depending on who it is, one continues it, ignores it, or -- in the case of something unappealing or taboo -- actively pushes it away.

I've met very few men who strictly separate "just friends" and "potential sexual partners", whereas I know quite a few women who see the world that way -- making a super-rigid distinction between the two, often claiming to know right away whether a guy is in column A or column B, and never switching between columns. (Many of those women seem to have major sex/relationship issues, and tbh I'd be lying if I said I thought it was a coincidence.)

yeah, what Vichitravirya_XI said.

xposts ev psych hasn't fallen out of favor exactly, it's just highly controversial and has nowhere near the truth value/explanatory power contenderizer's ascribing to it.

ev psych is unrad

I know quite a few women who see the world that way -- making a super-rigid distinction between the two, often claiming to know right away whether a guy is in column A or column B, and never switching between columns.

This is fascinating to me.

true and i would also like to point out max and jhoshea have been lolsy in this thread

xpost

fyi horseshoe is my friend and i dont want to bone her

no offense

<3

joe is my friend and i dont want to bone him, just eat clementines with him

i still hav more than one box of clementines left so if u want to come over i can read u the stephen pinker book i hav while u eat clementines

guys i think milo just came to a realization lol

It is news to me that EB is such a universally "accepted," scientifically sound foundation to describe human social interactions that it can described as a "rule" that now has to be disproved...!

― Vichitravirya_XI

As far as a more general defense of sexual evolutionary biology/psychology as applied to human beings goes, yeah, I do think the field has been marginalized, even crippled by its political unpopularity.

The last female friend I had, I realized later was using me as a stopgap until she found a boyfriend.

I have no female friends anymore who are not married. Married isn't just a deal killer, it's a wank killer, it's a whole thing killer. Married women, I can be friends with.

"wank killer"????????

pls define 'wank killer'

Either you guys are all led by your nobs or I'm more sexless (or less driven by hormones) than even I thought I was. I still find it amusing how unable some ppl here are to get into the concept that friend=friend, no desire, not even a thought of it, *even if they are hot*.

why

go with the flow i say -- whatever happens happens, u dont try to make something that aint there happen but theres also no reason to go around dividing ppl into categories -- it suggests that ppl dont change or their outlooks dont or that they dont get to know other ppl in different ways

i dont want to bone all of my friends but the ones i end up getting really close to yeah eventually

nb obv its not a preferred way to go about things and can fuck up friendships pretty easily -- not advocating gross insular friend sleepovers -- just sayin sometimes shit doesnt go as planned

I don't hold it against people who strictly segregate their friends and lovers, and don't hold it against the ones who blur those lines. I know both types, of both sexes. I do like it when larger circles of friendships (and artistic relationships, and professional relationships -- tribal, community stuff) end up outlasting short-term relationships, instead of everyone starting from scatch each time.

pls define 'wank killer'

You can't have a wank fantasy about her, because it make you feel dirty and wrong. I thought that was obvious.

xxp or maybe the way trayce thinks ppl are 'attractive' is in some abstract aesthetic way i just dont get that has no association whatsoever to physical attraction

yah but what abt one of those movies where the best friends agree to get married if neither of them hav found someone by 35 and then it turns out they were in love the whole time

I think I started a thread about this once.

Oh yes: "If neither of us is married in 20 years, let's get hitched."

for me it's like - dudes get more 'attractive' to me (just naturally) when i think they are cool or i 'click' with them or whatever - by definition i have a sexual desire towards most of the dudes im close with even if i know tons of dudes who i think are more physically attractive

i feel like the general populace would say that personality is as important as looks in terms of attraction - shouldn't we have the urge to bone those that we find attractive? idk i don't think it's a bad thing or like 'wow MEN ARE SUCH ANIMALS' or anything to feel sexual desire towards close friends

maybe i'm young - btw i hope that post doesn't read like a jagger outtake

two of my friends once said that if they werent married by 35, they would both marry a hot dog

true story

good story

great story

For some reason I read "hot dog" as "attractive canine."

each reader brings his or her own perspective to the work

I read it as "sex toy" :/

Guys, I left you open for a Maggie Gyllenhaal joke.

No, I think you just beat us to it.

contenderizer getting too much shit here for stating noncontroversial biology 101. i hate when people scream "determinism" every time someone opens a textbook. it's only deterministic if you take the absurd step of saying people have no control over biological drives. we have lots of control. that doesn't mean the drives aren't there. they're there because they serve a valuable function, from the standpoint of reproduction (which is the main thing biology cares about).

anyway.

http://traveler.sunset.com/images/2008/05/30/140942607_a12fb58fa6.jpg

i hate when people scream "determinism" every time someone opens a textbook. it's only deterministic if you take the absurd step of saying people have no control over biological drives.

I hate it just as much when people scream "determinism" to excuse or explain complex social and/or sexual behaviors that may lie outside the norm. Don't tell anybody, but ain't no such thing as a gay gene, any more than there's a gene that makes you cheat on your wife.

Not that they are in any way morally similar, mind you. Just that they are both complex social behaviors that many people see as deviant.

you don't think sexual orientation is "determined" at some level? anyway, that's a different thread. and as far as i can tell, nobody's talking about excusing anything, including wanting or not wanting to bone yr friends, or cheat on your wife, or whatever. there's a difference between holding individual people accountable for their actions and acknowledging that we are among other things biological machines with biological imperatives. how we address those imperatives is up to us -- eat the donut or the salad -- but that doesn't make the imperatives go away. there are obvious practical, evolutionary differences between male and female sexuality in the aggregate, even though there's a huge amount of variation in its expression.

Yeah, that what tipsy said. Except I still don't get the part about the salad.

you don't think sexual orientation is "determined" at some level?

I think even gender is essentially a social construct. But you're right, it's a totally other thread.

You're also right about everything else.

xpost Our evolutionarily determined impulses want the donut, because it hasn't figured out things like refrigeration, indoor heating, etc. Our middle brains still pack the fat on any time we let it do the driving.

because THEY haven't figured out things like... little noun-verb problem there.

What I don't get is how more people don't get all bloaty and yuck-feeling when they eat donuts. I can handle about one Boston Creme per year.

>>As far as a more general defense of sexual evolutionary biology/psychology as applied to human beings goes, yeah, I do think the field has been marginalized, even crippled by its political unpopularity.<<

but isn't it a cop-out to just say "ooh the PC brigade" shot and killed this balloon (similar to the way conservatives always whine about political correctness)? i'd say, for it to even serve as a generally accepted foundation to base such assumptions off of...the burden of proof should fall on the evolutionary biologists to "prove" their theory as formidable..

...or at least start with describing how sexually active women comfortably fit into this theory, in defiance of the home-nest-maker role/mold. can we do this? (historically looking at its popularity in pop psychology, i still think EB has most often been used to justify or rationalize "all men must cheat / monogamy is outdated" arguments)

(also - just MY opinion here - it's never been very constructive to take models that explain human behavior by comparing them to animals to their logical conclusion. i mean, as humans, we're supposed to transcend that - and perhaps at least a minority of us do. see also: the perils of social darwinism...)

that should have read, "sexually active, non-monogamous women"

http://www.freewords.org/biennial/artist/artimage/allmenare.jpg

http://lsaliture.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/men-and-their-dogs.jpg

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/dating/blog/spotniceguy-thumb.gif

for it to even serve as a generally accepted foundation to base such assumptions off of...the burden of proof should fall on the evolutionary biologists to "prove" their theory as formidable..

You're confusing evolutionary biology (better known as... uh... biology) with evolutionary psychology, which I would agree is way shaky.

yeah, but i was just following the conversation here - and it's good to note the pitfalls of noting the difference between those two... EP or whatever takes its cues from this conflation ("men are just listening to their genes, monogamy is beyond or an extreme struggle for them," etc)

i just want to know how EB or EP or whatever you want to call the "instinctual rules" of this theoretical behavioral foundation makes an allowance for non-monogamous women in our modern society after the introduction of the pill. it seems to be a HUGE "exception" and hole in the theory

I suppose the problem is that a huge number of people confuse biology and psychology, full stop.

...or at least start with describing how sexually active women comfortably fit into this theory

sexually active people fit into evolutionary biological models. it's all about sexual activity. there's plenty of female promiscuity elsewhere in the primates. (see bonobos for an extreme example.) but the particular expressions of female and male sexuality have distinct variations, which -- despite being buried beneath layers and layers of varying customs, taboos and traditions -- are easily traceable to core biological functions. that doesn't mean human sexuality is limited by or to its biological foundations. just that those foundations are always there.

I still find it amusing how unable some ppl here are to get into the concept that friend=friend, no desire, not even a thought of it, *even if they are hot*.

I can understand not thinking of one's hot friend in a sexual way. With all but the hottest people, you get used to it pretty quickly, especially if there are good reasons for not hooking up. What I can't easily understand, though, is the people who claim never to have thought of their hot friend in a sexual way -- never having even mulled over the idea for five seconds -- thanks to some sort of InstaMagic classification system.

Also, I think the people who insist that everything in human sexual behavior is socially constructed have just as much of an agenda, or pre-existing bias, as those that look for a biological basis for it all.

xpost That poster sucks, but I wonder what the name would be for the female counterpart of the Nice Guy is? There are certainly plenty of people out there, men and women both, with low-to-middling attractiveness, faux-doormat personalities, and a grasping, needy, passive-aggressive streak.

I wonder what the name would be for the female counterpart of the Nice Guy is?

I can has grammar?

Also, I think the people who insist that everything in human sexual behavior is socially constructed have just as much of an agenda, or pre-existing bias, as those that look for a biological basis for it all.

I suppose I should clarify, because I don't have any agenda that I am aware of. I said a while ago on the thread titled "Images that shaped my sexuailty" that it was a specifically male thread, and what I meant was that male sexuality is far more heavily influenced and shaped by visuals than female sexuality is -- that's biological. But so little about sex is that simple.

>>sexually active people fit into evolutionary biological models. it's all about sexual activity. there's plenty of female promiscuity elsewhere in the primates. (see bonobos for an extreme example.)

yes - and i don't disagree really, with anyone you're saying TM, but looking at bonobos is trying to find evidence in reverse to corroborate human behavior. i was just trying to point out that the standard EP model - which is based on biology - of men the active/indiscriminating seed-spreaders, women the passive/selective homemakers, just seriously breaks down and appears irreparably FLAWED once we even acknowledge the behavior of women today. freed from the shackles of conventional patriarchal expectations (and apologies ifi 'm sounding too amateur-betty freidan here), women have proven to be JUST AS capable of promiscuous and indiscriminating behavior as men

xpost Or, much about sex is that simple at first, but drawing any conclusions from such low-level tendencies is very dangerous.

Vichitravirya_XI, I believe we may at last agree on something. :)

also, i remember this news story from a month ago:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1981745-british-girls-have-had-an-average-of-nine-sexual-partners-by-age-of-21-encountered-average-of-3-teeth

YOUNG women are no longer just lying back and thinking of England, they are actively seeking out sexual partners - even more so than men.

A survey has revealed young British women are more promiscuous than their male counterparts and more likely to be unfaithful.

The study of 2000 women in the UK, commissioned by More magazine, found that by the age of 21, women have had an average of nine sexual partners - two more than their male partner.

It also found a quarter of young women have slept with more than 10 partners in the first five years since losing their virginity, compared with 20 per cent of young men.
More magazine editor Lisa Smosarski said: "Our results show today's twenty-something women are taking control of their sex lives and getting what they want in bed."
The average age at which respondents lost their virginity was 16.

More than half of respondents said they were not in love with the person they lost their virginity to and only 32 per cent believed it was important to be in love with someone before they had sex with them.

But if a woman met someone she really liked, 56 per cent would make him wait "a month or more" before she would have sex with him.

Of the women surveyed, 50 per cent admitted they had cheated on a partner and half of those had been unfaithful at least twice.

Only 25 per cent said they had a partner who cheated on them.

If a man did cheat, 99 per cent of young women would dump him.

Indicating the influence of Britain's tabloid newspapers, 60 per cent of women said they would "kiss and tell" for money if they had a one-night stand with someone famous.

The survey results were released less than a fortnight after an academic study found British citizens were the most promiscuous of any large western industrial nation.
Source: AAP

ooh kenan, you know we usually are harmonious enough as long as we're not talking about anything remotely metaphysical :)

and as long as you don't say "harmonious"

http://images.payplay.fm/m/j/mjcu/600/mjcu.jpg

i am waiting now for someone to make that "oh but British sluts are TEH EXCEPTION" point lol

everyone is the exception when it comes to sex

not that im nec. taking a side in the argument as a whole here but obv women can have more sexual partners than men and it doesnt mean that they're not still being more selective -- a few guys could just have tons of sex w/ all the women

1981745-british-girls-have-had-an-average-of-nine-sexual-partners-by-age-of-21-encountered-average-of-3-teeth

freed from the shackles of conventional patriarchal expectations...women have proven to be JUST AS capable of promiscuous and indiscriminating behavior as men

I don't see how any part of this sentence has been "proven"! If British (or any other) women have been freed from these shackles, it certainly will come as news to many of them. You could just as easily argue -- and many people have -- that a new set of social constructions, patriarchal or otherwise, are in place that are making women feel pushed into more promiscuous behavior. I'm not saying I agree with that one, but there are plenty of feminists who think that the biological component to human sexual behavior, and preferences, is at least as strong as the social one. There's a hell of a lot of room before one reaches biological determinism.

(I'm also not sure about the idea of "transcending" biology, i.e. what it would mean or whether it would be desirable.)

obviously we can argue anything anyway...my point is just that the EP model described like, 200 posts ago is seriously weak and until this thread, i never thought anyone on ilx would really take it seriously - even on a foundational level

of course that study is pretty meaningless...xpost

"transcending biology" just = we can control our instincts in a way animals cannot (or most animals?). i don't think any of us are really reiterating anything that different..

Sex is so messy, and maybe it's time to bring up Freud. It's not so important that we have all these fundamental urges to contend with -- yes, women want to make more of themselves, and so do men, but so do ferns -- it's that sex is a place in the human psyche that is for most of us (everyone I know, or have even heard about) a reservoir (or maybe a dump) for everything we think about *ourselves*. It's as much a part of self-identification as being able to recognize our own face in the mirror, and its outward expression is tied up in head shit that none of us will ever understand, especially about ourselves. It's never just sex, it's always an accumulation of experiences, or sometimes a lack thereof, and it's not finally about making copies. It's about that smell in the backseat the first time you got a blowjob, or that feeling of comfort you get from the flowers he gives you that look just like the flowers on the wallpaper of your old bedroom, or the unexpressed anger you have from all the times your dad yelled at you, or the delight of transgression against the God that you were told is an angry God, and on and on. Sexual urges are too gigantic and maybe too important to ascribe to boring old biology.

I don't see how that's Freud tho... that seems like biological + psychological training to me?

the delight of transgression against the God that you were told is an angry God this is, I guess, certainly much more than identifying the smell of upholstery with a first blowjob. (Not trying to be a dick; just that when you said we should bring Freud into this, I got really curious how you were going to do that. And now I'm wondering if you in fact did that.)

I only meant that it goes way back.

Maybe he'd say that if you had repressed sexual feelings towards a parent in a developing stage, that love for the forbidden might emerge in your friendships - sexual longing for friends that should not be sexual objects (like your mother, or like your father once was). Of course, you could read that in the opposite direction too, that if you can be friends with a woman without wanting to bone her, you are sublimating that boning urge, ie: the id always wants to bone and the mitigation is a series of repressions. (Trying to figure out how to fit taboo into this - maybe you're right about flipping off God, but there's nothing wrong with fucking a friend. At least not morally/ethically. Unless you think there is, in which case, go back to the beginning of this post.)

I dunno. I'd be much happier trying a Jungian analysis. Is there any archetype where a man and a woman are just friends?

(Obv. re: Freud, libido/death drive. Which means anyone who doesn't wanna bone her is all Thanatos-WHATEVA.)

Jungian works well for me, but there'd be no Jung without Freud. I shouldn't have said Freud. Too specific.

And no, there's no archetype.

How about Jesus-Mary Magdalene? Guy + Gal pals without any sex.

Oh please. He boned her six ways from Sunday.

Not in the text. And arguably what people respond to in the Jesus-Mary narrative is the non-sexuality of their relationship.

jesus kenan

Of course, this is problematic itself, because Jesus is her savior - the relationship is explicitly hierarchical, and the discussion here about sex has set up a dichotomy between hierarchical-sex/nonhierarchical-friend, and the Jesus story suggests the hierarchy of the sex relationship, but with the friendship of the nonhierarchical one. But, that said, I totally get how the archetype is contemporarily expressed - the female/male confidant, mentor, professor. No maybe this isn't the platonic ideal I was looking for...

(sorry, feel like i'm pulling the thread off-tangent. probably because i'm sleepy + bored. let's go back to talking about boning and biology.)

um i just meant that as an expression of horror, wasnt repeating the name of the particular person under discussion xp

It was a blas' fa me, was is a blas' fa you?

I have mostly male friends, and I wouldnt want to bone *any* of them, it'd be like sleeping with my brother!
Thats why they are FRIENDS. its not rocket science.

ha, would you like to stand up and tell the class how long you knew your BF before BF-hood became the situation?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/dating/blog/spotniceguy-thumb.gif

ay where did u find this pic of me

what big feet you have

just big shoes, apparently

I think we should all hang out more with Nate Carson, who has many, many attractive female friends. Who he definitely does not want to bone.

Well OK maybe "a mild wanting to bone" (lol)

how come nice guys have to be under six feet? I'm kinda glad that takes me out of the running, but I'm still curious.

Almost every one of my good friends in London is female. I think the older men get, the harder it is for them to make new male friends. I don't know why this is. I'm certainly not suggesting there's anything genetically predestined about it. But it seems like a pattern both in my life and in those of other men I know.

I think even gender is essentially a social construct.

― mose def (kenan), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 2:15 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol kenan is a gender queer kenan is a gender queer

speaking from personal experience, when I was in my teens through mid-20's, probably not. now, totally.

Only if she's ugly.

...or at least start with describing how sexually active women comfortably fit into this theory, in defiance of the home-nest-maker role/mold. can we do this?

i was just trying to point out that the standard EP model - which is based on biology - of men the active/indiscriminating seed-spreaders, women the passive/selective homemakers, just seriously breaks down and appears irreparably FLAWED once we even acknowledge the behavior of women today.

― Vichitravirya_XI

I don't think any biological model of basic human sexual patterns should be expected to account for all instances of human behavior, or even necessarily for the dominant mores of this or that society. As others have pointed out, it's reasonable to assume that social/cultural forces play at least as significant a role in the shaping human sexuality as "biological imperatives". And humans aren't simple devices. If biological imperatives do exist within us, they're part of a complex set of factors that combine to shape human sexuality.

Problem with using the example of "the behavior of (people) today" to argue against EPsych is that Western societies have spent decades - if not centuries - first identifying & fetishizing, then criticizing and reconstructing what we take to be our "natural" patterns of behavior. Culturally if not biologically, what we are now is at least in part a reaction against what we imagine was wrong with the behavior of humans in the past.

And maybe that sounds like I'm throwing up my hands and saying, "it's all a mess, who know what causes what?" Which is true, I suppose, but only to a limited extent. Some of the models suggested by EPsych make a certain kind of basic sense (which proves nothing on its own), and have broad validity in the animal kingdom (but "the animal kingdom" ain't us), and are borne out by historical human behavior patterns (which may be nothing more than repressive patriarchy in action), and seem very present in the human relationships I've observed and experienced (anecdotal). In other words, given a high level of basic uncertainty and in spite of the errors of the past, I don't see any reason to discount this line of thinking out of hand -- though I agree that there's good reason to take it with a very large grain of salt.

not that im nec. taking a side in the argument as a whole here but obv women can have more sexual partners than men and it doesnt mean that they're not still being more selective -- a few guys could just have tons of sex w/ all the women

― deej

You could just as easily argue -- and many people have -- that a new set of social constructions, patriarchal or otherwise, are in place that are making women feel pushed into more promiscuous behavior. I'm not saying I agree with that one, but there are plenty of feminists who think that the biological component to human sexual behavior, and preferences, is at least as strong as the social one.

― Charlie Rose Nylund

Not necessarily endorsing either of these arguments, but they're both worth considering. More Charlie's second sentence than the first. Deej's point about selectivity vs. promiscuity is spot-on. The equation of female monagamy with "natural" female selectivity is old-fashioned garbage of the sort that should have vanished in the 50s. A woman can be highly selective and still have multiple partners. Just as a man can have no standards and still have no luck.

ay where did u find this pic of me

"Non-threatening genitalia"?

Only if she's ugly.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 11:25 AM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how come nice guys have to be under six feet?

Tall guys don't have to be nice to get laid.

Let us never forget the lesson of the Sexecutioner.

at first, no, but if a guy a) fucks up a potential romance or b) the female carefully steers the situation towards friendship, then yes.

Or uh if the guy realizes that it would be really really stupid.

^^ Not thinking with his dick

Atypical male!

I have a friend who is basically like this; he has very few female friends because he's boned them all.

omg those are two circumstances where bone-want is ensured forever burt_stanton!

That's actually a more interesting subject to me, Tracer; what kind of friendships do men have with women they've boned?

They share cigs.

boneship

I'm over six foot, and friends with girls without the expectation/hope of 'boning' and the awful awkwardness that would follow. I listened to too many rock ballads as a kid and now, and have quite romantic notions and fully expect to end up heartbroken and alone.

playing a guitar solo on a hill and drinking whiskey from a brown paper bag.

the post-bone friendship to me seems patently impossible, unless there was a good relationship behind it. things get weird fast.

what kind of friendships do men have with women they've boned?

i've been surprised at how people i know who did that have just reverted to how they were before like it was no big thing at all. but don't know the full story really.

just about all my female friends are girls i've boned or girls my friends are boning/were boning.

you could bond with a hipster obama victory dance tho?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x254/simujur/Album%20no2/03-WantedDeadOrAlive-BonJovi01-tn.jpg

I been everywhere
But I wish I was tall
I'd see a million ladies
And I'd bone them all

i'm tall btw

or girls my friends are boning/were boning

jim to be fair this is a somewhat different category. I HOPE.

i done this a few friends on a few occasion and i didn't see anyTHING WRONG WITH IT BOTH SEEmed to be totally fine wtih it why wouldn't anyone want to do this. i suppose you could always orakl

the post-bone friendship to me seems patently impossible

^^ not true, but it takes a while. depends on a lot of things. on not being an asshole, primarily.

i've been surprised at how people i know who did that have just reverted to how they were before like it was no big thing at all. but don't know the full story really.

If the two of you are well-suited to be friends anyway and you get the whole sexual tension/'hmm, I wonder' out of the way, there's no reason you can't be excellent friends.

or girls my friends are boning/were boning

jim to be fair this is a somewhat different category. I HOPE.

― Tracer Hand

yeah, the girls my friends are boning/were boning go in to a special completely non-boneable category in my brain.

Goole bring truth. AGAIN.

Michael, it depends on the boner and the bone-ee. From the female perspective, I'm friends with three exes but NOT friends with people from the casual sex reject pile that I didn't have a friendship with before the cazh secks. Basically it all depends on the individuals concerned and their attitudes to friends generally rather than any specifically gendered behaviour.

but NOT friends with people from the casual sex reject pile that I didn't have a friendship with before the cazh secks.

Yeah, pretty much my take. Btw, I love the expression 'casual sex'. It seems to have lost all the moralistic opprobrium but not the idea that you could, you know, forego white tie and tails and just show up in a blazer with a bottle of lube or something homey like that.

i have pretty normal friendships with girls where the bone was of the "let us never speak of this again" variety and that special ex-girlfriend kind of friendship with ex-girlfriends. actually i have pretty normal friendships with girls where the bone was a good experience all around, but there is still some sexual tension there.

xp

special ex-girlfriend kind of friendship with ex-girlfriends.

current gf's always get a real kick out of this one

yeah, the girls my friends are boning/were boning go in to a special completely non-boneable category in my brain.

category = "would bone"

yeah i guess girls i'm still friends with post-bone were good pre-bone friends already.

I love it when you enter a room where your gf and an ex-gf are conversing and you ask about what and they smile and say, "Nothing."

that happens in every romantic comedy ever!

yeah, the girls my friends are boning/were boning go in to a special completely non-boneable category in my brain.

Is this due to some 'ew' reaction or to the fact that if they were clueless/indiscriminate enough to bone your friends, God knows what mischief they might get up to.

"I never thought something like this would happen to me, but last week when I arrived home, my girlfriend and ex-girlfriend were in the front room, conversing. When I asked them what about, they just smiled and said, 'Nothing'."

"they just smiled, stared briefly at my nether-regions and said "...nothing..."

what abt boning lesbian friends hav u guys tried this variation

i don't really think about boning my lesbian friends. wait actually that's a lie.

its an excellent way to turn the tables on this whole conversation

It's a good way to get your other lesbian friends to stop calling you.

whence this wealth of sapphic friendship, tracer

It's fun to check out pulchritudinous lasses with lesbian friends

former sapphic friendship sounds more like ;)

It's OK we're all friends again now! It was weird, it was like I'd boned THEM and then never called or something

uh to be clear I didn't not call anyone, ever!!

Haha why the hell am I getting twisted up explaining myself here??

because you wanna bone lesbians when you are friends with them and feel guilty about it

it's okay. ilx is here to help you. let your feelings out

They probably feel guilty about wanting to bone you, too.

lol im just like u all ladies need to get a little better at stepping up and snatching that ass here let me show u

a lot of lesbians i know bone dudes every now and then anyway so i don't feel too bad about it.

xp

lol im just like u all ladies need to get a little better at stepping up and snatching that ass here let me show u

Really? My lesbian friends don't have that 'problem' at all.

takes all types i guess

I have a lesbian friend with the greatest body ever but she only ever wears baggy clothes. n e way I want to bone her, yes.

this thread would prob be more fruitful as a advice for boning yr lesbian friends thread

tip - it's really all about boning your lesbian friends' friends

nice^

lesbian bone possibility makes being single sound so appealing :-/

(stay firm, boy)

uh

o_0

maybe u and yr girl would like to bone a lesbian together tho just sayin

to be fair the friends' friends advice is true whether your friends are lesbians or not

here's another tip - if you are ever given "the ethical slut" for christmas you got to tap that

Still no lesbians on ILX? There was one on the gay thread for a few days, but I think she disappeared.

lol a passing whimsy grabs the o_Os

maybe u and yr girl would like to bone a lesbian together tho just sayin

― ice cr?m

Sometimes they have ads for this in the paper.

"the ethical slut" is an insanely unappealing construction up there w/"fuck want" but still yah must smash

I thought as 'slut' is pejotative it implied lack of ethics no matter how sliced, seems oxymoronic anyway.

My exes with LTGFs are secure enough in their relationships to have no worries, also would not go back there myself so NO PROBS.

ex-gf is all about that book

I think the 'slut' in 'ethical slut' is an attempt to commandeer the meaning, which is fine by me.

i am facebook friends with my two accountable previous bones, would be lying if i said they weren't very occasionally still in the wankbank, obviously current situation means i don't actually wanna go back there given a chance

move thread to ILTMI btw

dont know anything abt "the ethical slut" but it seems a little tuomasian for me - trying to sanitize neurosis is futile and FRANKLY kinda no fun

it's neurosis to want to sleep with lots of people?

I have "boned" two lesbians. Anything can happen.

somewhat sure - but more to want to sleep w/lots of people and keep everything cool - i mean pick yr battles ok

xp

but you have the highest testosterone count on ilx, this is established fact xpost

― REMOVE THEIR EARS (country matters), Tuesday, 6 January 2009 16:16 (2 hours ago) Bookmark

the authors have a vaguely self-helpy tone. several times they say "no one has ever experienced low self esteem at the moment of orgasm!"

and i wanted to be like "you've clearly never crouched sweating in secret having a frantic wank before the pizza arrives"

LOOL

thread got better

Still no lesbians on ILX? There was one on the gay thread for a few days, but I think she disappeared.

― xhuxk e. xheese (jaymc), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 1:17 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ya where'd she go?? i think she like lives near me too. no maybe i'm wrong.

brings new meaning to Crouch End amirite britishes?

I like lesbians who look like little newsboys. Aren't they called bois or something?

Off topic, I know...

I am friends with many women, including many who I think are good-looking, whom I do not want to bone. I can flirt sometimes but that's not necessarily about bonin'.

yes, flirting with friends in the mutual understanding that it won't lead anywhere is very healthy for one's sexual outlook, especially when in a relationship

i giggle so much when i flirt, sometimes i get tired

wankbank?! lol

you're quite the excitable sort, surm ;)

i suppose i am :D

u kno, this thread is kind of ensuring that i'm going to put on when harry met sally tonight

surm <3

i hope that's ALL you're putting on, surm ;)

:/

here's another tip - if you are ever given "the ethical slut" for christmas you got to tap that

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:16 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wait i don't get this, tap who? the person who gave you the book? why would a woman give a dude this book? my head is reeling here. tap the book?

1 approach attractive friend

2 hold "the ethical slut" up at or near eye level

3 tap that w/the index finger of the hand not holding the book

4 say "there are some pretty persuasive arguments in this book"

5 get to bonin

5. one way ticket to bonin island on a ship with only female staff

http://mysite.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/boninchol.htm

http://www.newyorkmasters.com/players/jay_bonin.jpg

most ironic name ever?

oh you don't even wanna know

i giggle so much when i flirt, sometimes i get tired

― Surmounter, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im glad surmounter is back

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8lAhq1XcAE885i.jpg

Of course, this is problematic itself, because Jesus is her savior [...]

― Mordy, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:40 AM (eight years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8lB_28XUAAIw7U.jpg:large

Girl, you make my economic perspective go macro.

good looking out, mookie damn this thread was a long time ago

i take back my post of eight years ago; i'd bone laurel.

good to know you've straightened out your priorities

You can "want to bone" someone in theory but not have that as an ulterior motive in your head whenever you interact with them. This thread is based on regressive heteronormative gender stereotypes.

Hans Fiene is a Senior Contributor to The Federalist. He is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith.

oookay

Congratulations, treesh!

Google says:

No results found for "regressive heteronormative gender stereotypes".

Duck-Duck-Go says:

No results found for "regressive heteronormative gender stereotypes".

Well yeah treeship, but what you said still implies you want to bone them on some level, so... :)

Bone Actually

t'ain't nothing wrong with wanting to bone someone attractive, treesh otm re: ulterior motives

also I hate the word "bone" in this context

Amazon says:

Your search ""regressive heteronormative gender stereotypes"" did not match any products.

I hate "bone" as a verb too was just going with the thread's established nomenclature

During one of these hammer blows, a significant quake off shore from Japan in the Bonin Arc region occurred. At first called a magnitude 7.9, this was later downgraded, as usual, by the USGS to be a 7.4. The tsunami that followed did not cause the high tides and choppy waves noted throughout Indonesia and in Australia and New Zealand, however, as the tsunami for this Bonin Arc quake progressed northwest. The Bonin Arc is part of what is called the Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc, along the eastern edge of the Philippine Plate as it approaches the point where 3 plates meet at Mt Fiji - the Philippine Plate, the Pacific Plate, and the N American Plate. From the start of the Bonin Island hammering on December 20, 2010 at 17:19 UTC until December 24, 2010 at 10:05 UTC there were 101 quakes above magnitude 4.7 in this hammer. And still ongoing.

this seems like one of those creepy PUA truisms that actually is true

re: thread question

"truism" is not the word I'm looking for but i'm blanking rn

'Bone' always just makes me think of this guy

http://data.electionleaflets.org/cache/41/13/411395b6d58bebb5a96792a56758bd52.png

I'm boning

Peter
BACK

turnabout is fair play