tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post5598559325028566229..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: Things that are on the InternetPhoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-40186031923170114652012-04-11T15:21:29.957-04:002012-04-11T15:21:29.957-04:00I might forgive him that because it was an op-ed. ...I might forgive him that because it was an op-ed. It seems like the kind of thing where he might have put in nuance, and it might have been edited out.<br /><br />I agreed with much in both the articles, even though the were quite different. Obviously, if you're traumatized by the thought of congeniality/conviviality between men and women, you can't participate in the modern workforce, and are best off joining a closed religious sect or remaining in fetal position at home or who knows. <br /><br />But at the same time, there's a kind of forced-sophistication, or ultra-professionalism, or something, that operates these days, such that we have to pretend that if an unattached straight man asks an unattached straight woman if his acquaintance to go to dinner with him, alone, with no work pretext, this is merely because he wants to be her friend. (A woman asking a man to go do something might have it easier, because she might give the impression that she, like much of the rest of society, thinks asking-out is done by the man, therefore asking a man to go to the movies is of course about friendship. But things may become difficult if she does intend more than friendship. Or not. It depends.) The man may pretend this so as not to set himself up for rejection, the woman so as not to flatter herself. (All those older men in coffee shops are just being friendly!) Nothing is stated, and barring massive quantities of alcohol, nothing ever happens. <br /><br />This, I think, explains much of the appeal of online dating. People - adults - who meet under ordinary circumstances, even where no one's anyone else's boss or cousin or what have you, are under a kind of perma-taboo when it comes to romance. The fear of committing an act of unwanted romantic intrusion has a way of default defining relationships as "friendships" that might more accurately be deemed flirtations, dates, etc. But these aren't exactly friendships, in the 'opposite-sex friendships are possible' sense.<br /><br />Also, I think there's a danger in overly sanitizing friendship. People's interactions with even passably attractive members of the sex they prefer will always be charged in a way that those with the sex they don't will not. That's a part of what sexual orientation is, and there's not much to be done about it. Assuming heteros, a man and a woman who are in no way trying to sleep with each other will experience a different sort of friendship than would that man and another man, etc. It doesn't make such friendships <i>impossible</i>, or even difficult, just different.Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-63850525512468791172012-04-11T12:09:16.841-04:002012-04-11T12:09:16.841-04:00While I agree with the first article's takeawa...While I agree with the first article's takeaway point (men and women! can be friends!), I loved his reference to Traditional Society, that homogeneous culture that is distinguished primarily by being Not Now or Not Here, and sums up oh, about 100,000 years of human history.Brittahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02224221011978374915noreply@blogger.com