Harry and Sally Were Wrong !

Chapter II

Social Conventions that Prevent PEFs,

and Their Misapprehensions

        It makes sense that many social conventions have developed around this FZ idea because sexuality is one of the most animal traits humanity has, and we are heavily invested in believing that we are far superior to animals. Or, as Christianity put it, made in the image of God—and not in the image of apes. We strive to be spiritual, angelic beings like the kindly, celibate priest—not those who molest children. We strive not to be the grunting, out-of-control beast with two backs who loses control, having it displaced by hundreds of millions of years of evolution compelling us to wildly go for the big O: orgasm.

        Then there’s the idea that children are conceived in sin. Thus, when Jesus was born, he emerged from a virgin, someone who had not descended into the sexual cauldron of animality. The virgin birth.  For centuries, Western Civilization solved this angel-animal dilemma by declaring that the only time this descent into animality can be expressed is within the bonds of marriage. These boundaries lasted for at least 1,700 years, when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. They lasted until the free love of the 1960s for many people, but for strict Christians, they are still the rule.

​

        And sexual attraction, what Catholics call concupiscence, is the first step towards this descent into animality. Thus friendships with those to whom you are attracted, but not married to, would be something Western Civilization needed to nip in the bud. And PEFs would be a primary casualty of such an attitude. Meaning there must be many social conventions to prevent such platonic-erotic friendships. I’ve found 19, but there are probably more.

        You might think that many conventions road-blocking men-and-women friendships is a hopeless snarl. And it is complex, but humanity is unsnarling these conventions daily … as women’s rights increase and as various forms of friendship are recognized as legit including LBGTQ+ and other unorthodox love paradigms.

        Here are the romantic love social conventions that inhibit the formation of platonic-erotic friendships that I’ve found. Each convention is followed by possible alternatives. In the third convention, the Woman-Man Wasteland, there’s a summary of how all these conventions have sometimes led to poor communication between the sexes. Once the communication snarls are transcended, friendships between men and women may be greatly increased.

        Here’s the first, and perhaps most powerful, social convention that prevents platonic friendships between women and men:

​​​​​​

1. The Macho Man Misunderstanding - The macho view that if a male isn’t trying to have sex with a woman they’re seeing, then they are less than a heterosexual male, and maybe somewhere on the LBGTQ+ spectrum. Or in middle and high school terms, a sissy, a momma’s boy or an asexual freak.

​​​​

        The machismo aspect begins when newly post-pubescent boys ask their friend George whether he “f’ed” Carol on their first date. Without this social convention George might have said: “No, but being around her was divine. Her words were as elegant as an angel and the curve of her waste seemed surpassing grace.” Or some such poetic/romantic meanderings. But the Macho-Man Misunderstanding means his homies would have snickered, and derided him for saying something like that, suggesting he was a sissy, borderline gay, or all-the-way gross. George would probably have blushed, felt less than a man, and maybe stop seeing Carol with whom he really didn’t want to have sex with, but wanted only to be friends with. 

        Peggy Orenstein has investigated this “did you f’-her” phenomenon extensively in her book, Boys and Sex: Navigating the New Masculinity.[21] She contends that fear of expressing vulnerability and femininity is a major motivation of junior high, high school and college-aged boys. They pour contempt upon any trait perceived as feminine, and they consider emotional vulnerability around women to be one of the most feminine of states.[22]

But thanks to Dr. Fisher’s work on the hormones secreted just by being around someone attractive, George can now say: “No, I didn’t “f” her, but I got a dopamine and serotonin hit that would make high-grade cocaine blush due to an inferiority complex.” And that might shut up his sarcastic homies. That is, George got something tangible in addition to the ethereal poetry of romance.

        Then there’s the college frat-boy MMM pressures that prove you’re living the sexual dream, as documented by Rachel Hill in her powerful book The Sex Myth. She writes:

We have stripped away some of the old taboos around sex and pleasure only to have replaced them with new anxieties around performance, desirability, and what it means to be ‘normal’. Have you had the right number of partners? Is your sex life spicy enough? Is everyone else having more sex than you? If we don’t have enough sex, then we’re obviously not physically attractive or socially skilled enough.[23]

        Angela Chen’s book, Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society and the Meaning of Sex states that that such an attitude creates the “huge shame and alienation reservoirs” that yields the phenomena of incels, involuntary celibates. [24]

        Incels are [supposedly] lonely because they lack sexual expertise, but they also feel entitled. Instead of questioning the definition of masculinity that prioritizes sexual conquests, incels lean into it, misusing evolutionary psychology to make themselves more miserable and falling into reductionist theories about genetic fitness and how the purpose of men is to impregnate as many women as possible.”[25]

​​​​

        And though there isn’t so much peer pressure to have sex as we grow older there’s still statements like: “Really? You’re on your fifth date and you haven’t even had sex yet? Are they gay? Are you gay?” This is sometimes said either by friends, or by you to yourself. And again, the answer can be. “Nope, but I’m feeling great, on top of the world, and it’s partly because my new, opposite-sex friend is a magnificent person, and partly because I’ve got many feel-good, mating hormones flowing.”

        But yes, the question of whether you are going to sleep with them is always, to some small or large extent, in the romantic air. That is a tantalizing, hormonal-inducing, aspect of being a PEF. Or the “sex part” as Harry calls it. Yet there’s a big difference in having it in the air and acting on it. Maybe you feel that the attraction is not great enough to warrant trying to have sex with the person. Maybe you’re already in a good monogamy. Maybe you like some aspects of romance but not others with this person.        

​​        

        The ESIC was constructed during the decades and centuries of the 1950s and before when sex was made so taboo that it became an even bigger obsession than it already, biologically, was. Most thus became strongly drawn towards sex but felt they shouldn’t be. I.e., Puritanism. In the 1960’s onward however, the opposite dynamic arose with the free-love movement. Sex was no longer taboo, in fact, promoted, so if you were attracted to someone you might as well have sex with them. Sex became an even bigger obsession.

        But no, just because you’re attracted to someone doesn’t mean you have to have sex with them. There are all kinds of levels of attraction. Maybe you just want to talk to them on the phone. Maybe you just want to walk with them alone. Maybe you just want to have brunch with them every once in a while. Maybe you just want to go to the symphony with them in style. Maybe you just want to play tennis, cards, pickleball, cook, go to art galleries, watch sports, watch romcoms or romantic tragedies, read poetry, etc. with them.

        The number of variables with which these platonic-erotic friendships can be expressed is almost infinite, but currently there are mainly two levels for the most part: you’re either not friends, or your flirting in order to obtain sex. Which is the Harry-Sally situation. What a waste of potential hormonal energy! What a waste of potentially fine friendships.                Chen says asexuals call such Excess-Sex-Industrial Complex pressures “compulsory sexuality.”

​​​

        Or also “sex positivity.” That is, as Rachel Hill says: “that their politics says sex is oppressed in our society and thus we should claim it.” But such liberation has gone overboard into compulsory sex whenever you’re attracted. “It needs to be balanced by sex negativity. By the conviction that it's fine not to have sex, even if you’re attracted to someone in various ways.[26]

        Chen quotes Hills to say that compulsory sex or sex positivity is built upon three assumptions:

​​​​​

a. “Sex is everywhere and sex sells everything.” There are powerful commercial and evolutionary forces trying to funnel our opposite sex friendships into sexual expression.” We don’t have to be so funneled. 

​​​​

b. “Sex is more special, more significant, a source of greater thrills and more perfect pleasure than any other activity that humans can engage in.”

​​​​

c. “Not being driven to have sex should be a value neutral choice, but instead it implies for most people that you are passionless, uptight, boring, frigid, robotic, cold, prude, lacking, broken.”[27]

​​​

        The power of these pressures is hard to see because it is so pervasive, the “a fish can’t see they’re in water because they swim in it” situation. But if the pressures weren’t so great, if they didn’t include the ESIC as well as the Macho-Man Misunderstanding, we might start to understand that we have different attractions to different people and thus don’t want to have sex with all the attractive people we’re around.

        Magazines like Cosmos for women and Playboy promote this funnel suck of sex in our society and evolution. Says Chen:

​​

When sex is a commodity, having and flaunting sex becomes a form of conspicuous consumption, used to signal that we are not passionless, uptight, boring and robotic but instead have the financial and social capital to be hip and fun and high status and multi-orgasmic.[28]

​​​

        Thus, if you’re not living the Cosmo or Playboy dream, you’re living the passionless life of a loser. Then there’s movie franchises like American Pie which is often about the relentless drive to lose high-school virginity, or TV series like the Gilmore Girls depicting the obsessive, monogamous goals of some women. Then there’s songs like Dean Martin’s sexy hit:

​​

You're nobody 'til somebody loves you
You're nobody 'til somebody cares
You may be king, you may possess the world and its gold
But gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old
 

The world still is the same, you never change it
As sure as the stars shine above
You're nobody 'til somebody loves you
So find yourself somebody to love[29]

​​​​

        It’s a tough song for those who don’t have a lover. By definition you’re unhappy, you’re a nobody.

​

        Chen also notes that even the basic love steps of aesthetic, romantic and sexual attraction can be separated. That is, they can be teased out from each other as separate motivations. You may be aesthetically attracted to someone, but not sexually so. “You may like to look at them, but not touch, hear words delivered from their fetching visage, but not kiss it. Or you may be romantically attracted, but not sexually so.”[30] You like candlelit dinners with them, but not the after-dinner sex and the after-sex afterglow. Others want to be touched but not have sex. Only hug maybe, or only smooch.

​​

        University of Utah Professor Lisa Diamond presents one study that shows 61% of women and 35% of men said they experienced infatuation and romantic love without any desire for sex.”[31] Although I find that somewhat hard to believe, just what would the romantic world look like if all cross-gender attraction impulses were not almost always channeled towards having sex?

​​

        And please, let’s not take this line of logic and use it to promote a new Puritanism. Sex is still a great thing and taking it down from its forbidden fruit status is a great advance in the loving. Sex is always an option and when done with consciousness and birth control (if that’s the goal) is often magnificent. Yet let’s not feel undue pressure to have sex either.  

​​​​

2. The Woman-Man Wasteland ----Women and men are so different that, without sex, they don’t have enough things in common to be friends.

​​​​

        In the 1950s and before, this was largely true. Western Civilization and Christianity, as well as most of the rest of world civilization, had so separated the roles of men and women that they had little in common. In fact, that notorious philosopher Nietzsche puts it well when he is cited as the source of the Youtube.com video, Women Are an Illusion.  To strongly qualify the video, its woeful tale of projection, compromise and deception is not the case for many relationships. Many men and women in history have transcended it as they get to know each other, or because they never participated in the first place. But the video does ring true for the overall, man-woman wasteland. The video states:

​​​

        Nietzsche believed that most men do not truly love women, they love an idea of women, a projection of a carefully constructed illusion that makes them feel safe, inspired, even superior. He called this romantic idealization a dangerous lie, one that says women are inherently pure, innocent delicate, and morally elevated. But for Nietzsche, this wasn't admiration, it was a form of self-deception.

​​​

        To him the ideal woman was not a reflection of reality, but a fantasy crafted by men who couldn't handle the raw, complex nature of the female spirit. Instead of facing that complexity, men reduced women to symbols of virtue, of beauty, of emotional salvation, and in doing they stripped women of their agency and turned them into characters in their own emotional dramas….

​​​

        Now, with platonic-erotic friendships, we can get beyond this projection because we aren’t demanding so much from them. On the other hand, such PEFs will still have plenty of the projection, but it will be more conscious. For that projection is part and parcel of the energy that such friendships provide. Part and parcel of the inherent sexual differences between men and women.

​​​​

        The summary of Nietzsche continues:

​​​

        For most of history women were denied access to formal power. They couldn't rule countries or lead armies so instead they adapted. They learned to influence from the shadows through charm, through seduction, through emotional precision. While men built their kingdoms with swords and speeches, women shaped the men who built those kingdoms.

​​​

        Now some women do have formal power. Now many women can more easily have economic and other agency, so those women don’t have to be characters in the emotional dramas of men to have access to power. They can be equals, including equal friends who have many of the same interests. 

​​​

        Nietzsche noticed how women could guide decisions without giving commands, win loyalty without force, and secure protection without asking. Their power was relational, psychological, and built on deep awareness of human nature. They understood what moved men: desire, ego, and pride, and they learned how to shape those forces without confrontation. Not out of malice but survival.

​​​​

        This deep awareness of human nature, this ability to seduce, are some of the psychological benefits men can learn by getting to know women as PEFs. And women get an understanding of power, desire, ego and pride. Also, men learn about nonviolence, “how to shape those manosphere forces without confrontation,” as the video says. It continues:

​​​

        What disturbed him [Nietzsche] most was the dishonesty of it all. Society dressed up this war in poetry and flowers calling it romance. But beneath that softness Nietzsche saw calculation. He saw two forces using each other, shaping each other, attempting to control each other under the pretense of unity. In this sense love was not the end of conflict, it was its most seductive form of conflict.

​​​

        Nietzsche didn't blame women for this, nor did he blame men. He blamed the illusion that love was pure, equal, or free from domination. He believed that every relationship was at its core a negotiation of power, one that most people never acknowledged. Because they didn't see it, they suffered under it.

​​​

       The removal of this huge amount of dishonesty, this goal of men trying to have sex with women while pretending to care about their inner selves, and women trying to obtain security and power from men while pretending to care about men’s inner selves, will be greatly lessened as liberated women gain power. In platonic-erotic relationships as well as in monogamies. This liberation will unleash a huge amount of energy as well as happiness and joy of life. There may be a lot more joie de vivre! But for now, at least in PEFs, we can get beyond this domination relation. Though they’ll be plenty of remnants in it, it will still be much freer from it than before. Of course, some marriages and monogamies will get beyond it also. Many already do.

​​

         Or, we can do as one of the comments of the Nietzsche video. As @myloveshineforyou states: “You fight to make the illusion real.”

​​

        The video concludes with this hopeful summary:

​​​

        But what happens when both sides drop the masks? When man no longer idealizes and woman no longer manipulates? When neither seeks control through charm or dominance but instead stands in full awareness of who and what they are?

​​​​

        This Nietzsche suggested was rare but not impossible. It required the death of sentimentality, the rejection of inherited roles, and the courage to meet each other not as saviors or adversaries but as equals in power … and in potential. Not the same but equally flawed, equally capable of transcendence.

​​​

        To reach this point one must abandon resentment. The man must let go of his bitterness towards the woman who no longer needs him. The woman must let go of her anger toward the man who once confined her. Only then can something deeper emerge. Not a reconciliation of the sexes, but a redefinition of what it means to connect.

​​​

        Nietzsche didn't promise that this was easy. He knew most would never reach it. But for those who could, those willing to abandon comfort for truth, fantasy for reality, a new kind of relationship could form, one not based on illusion or fear but on shared strength. Not on domination, but on mutual becoming.[32]

​​​​

        What a wondrous vision. And we say that “just” friendships between men and women, with sexual frustrations somewhat under control, can also lead to this wonderful friendship of mutual becoming. That is, in platonic-erotic friendships. Humanity is on the verge of transcending the sexual stereotypes that Nietzsche talks about, given women are relatively liberated now and men and women have many things in common besides sex, nurturing and loneliness. It’s time for a Man-Woman Summit where the massive canyon between the sexes is changed into an easily hopped over creek of dancing, enchanting flirtatious diversity, and vast, newly discovered commonalities.  

​

        Such advanced friendships will be aided by the poetry and romance of most sexual relationships, but with less external physical aspects. It will also be aided by evolution’s hormones of testest, dopenoser and vasoxy, among probably many others. And thus it’s a major liberation for humanity. And a major inroad to greater human connection that doesn’t involve the rare, but only sometimes wonderful, all-the-way sexual relationship.

​

        I should make a disclosure here. I’ve studied a large amount of Nietzsche and even wrote a book whose title is, in part, Liberating Liberals: A synthesis of Nietzsche and Jesus. (See Amazon for the book itself.) I wasn’t looking and didn’t find such an in-depth Nietzschean analysis of relations between men and women in my research. I was more interested in Friedrich’s efforts to discover how to be the freest and most independent thinker possible.

​

        I did however bump into some of the quotes that others have found, including those on the website, Nietzsche’s Quotes on Women. Such as: “Let man fear woman when she loves; then she makes any sacrifice, and everything else seems to be without value to her.” Or: “The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason, he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything.” And “In revenge and in love, woman is more barbarous than man.” And other mostly unflattering statements about women.

​

        On the other hand, there’s an entire Wikipedia entry called Friedrich Nietzsche’s Views on Women. It includes this quote by Frances Nesbitt Oppel:

​

...Nietzsche's apparent misogyny is part of his overall strategy to demonstrate that our attitudes toward sex-gender are thoroughly cultural, are often destructive of our own potential as individuals and as a species, and may be changed. What looks like misogyny may be understood as part of a larger strategy whereby "woman-as-such" (the universal essence of woman with timeless character traits) is shown to be a product of male desire, a construct.[33]

​​​

          Which synchronizes quite well with my contention that it is in great part social conventions—that it is, “thoroughly cultural” constructs—not inherent biological differences, that prevent platonic-erotic friendships. Women “as-such” meaning the woman who has developed as a result of the burden of millennia of male domination.

        And regardless, whether the quotes I’ve taken from the Women are an Illusion video are accurate as to Nietzsche’s views, they do synchronize with my views, with our exploration of whether it’s possible to have a platonic-erotic friendship, regardless of what Harry and Sally conclude. And “as such,” I find them very useful and illuminating.  

​​​​

3. The All-Or-Nothing Drubbing – A major goal in your life should be to marry, to be monogamous for life, and to have 2.5 kids.     

​​​

        Having a spouse and 2.5 kids is a noble goal, and a lot of people have found great happiness doing it. But others, not so much. Or worse, it’s been a lifelong train wreck. Thus, you can decide that you need feminine or masculine input, you need the hormones Fisher talks about, as well as other aspects of the feminine and masculine interaction, but you don’t want to live with it 24/7/365 till death do you part. Maybe just half the week, or a quarter of the week, or a few hours a day/week/month, or somewhere in between. PEFs can provide this. Or your monogamy or other connection can.

​​​

4. The All-or-Nothing Judging --– LBGTQ+ notwithstanding, the world is mainly divided into men and women. And all of your friends are on whatever half of the divide you are on, with one exception: your monogamous mate. They are the one good friend you can have on the other side of that gender line. If you’re a man, you can have one heterosexual woman friend, your mate. If you’re a woman, you can have one heterosexual man friend, your mate. That one man or woman should provide all your feminine or masculine needs. If you need more, then you’re sick, lacking consciousness, have the emotional age of a child, are a sexual predator.

​

        Many people want the ideal love relationship that provides most of their needs. Which is a fine thing. But if their monogamy doesn’t provide most of their needs, they consider it a failure and often go looking for another relationship. They do this rather than finding someone else to provide the needs that their mate doesn’t provide—while keeping their mate.

        Eli Finkel explores this phenomenon extensively in his book The All or Nothing Marriage. In it he tells of a man who was ostracized for going to a prostitute, not to have sex, but to read French poetry. His wife didn’t like French poetry, and so he had to find someone outside of his marriage to enjoy it with.[34]

​​

        It’s hard enough to find that ideal-enough lover. Some people do find them, but many don’t. 

​

       A way to bypass this impasse is to find a sexually attractive, yet relatively platonic friend—or friends. A PEF or PEFs. Maybe one with whom you don’t want to marry or form a monogamy, but one that gives you a bit of that sexual zing when around them. That concupiscence. Those hits of testest, dopenoser and vasoxy. As well as the other more nurturing more poetic aspects of flirtatious friendships.

​

       Such zing is not that all-the-way cocaine feeling you can get when you believe you’ve secured your one-and-only and are going to live a happy, sexually transcendent ever-after. But it’s a whole lot better than nothing. And it can provide some of the feel-good sex hormones. Enough to be a whole lot better than TV reruns on endless Saturday nights. Which is unnecessarily damning with faint praise. Because some of those platonic-erotic friends can be a a great asset, wondrously nurturing and sexually fulfilling—in a platonic sort of way. Or all-the-way ways if you eventually decide to try to take it there.

​​

        If you can find one or several PEFs with whom you’re able to spend quality time on a weekly or monthly basis. With this added to your same-sex friends, you’ve probably secured a fairly-effective barrier against loneliness, against emptiness. Perhaps it’s a good enough substitute for the usual domestic satisfaction of some monogamies. Or perhaps it can sustain you until you find that transcendent monogamy you’re hoping for. Or perhaps it’s good enough to sustain you with sufficient happiness and friendship for the rest of your life.

​

       And that is what the sitcom Friends was/is about to some extent. The characters are group of three men and three women who are attracted to each other enough to have sexual relationships with each other occasionally. But, even if they don’t work out, they stay friends. Sometimes they have relationships with people outside their six-person club. But if they break up with those external lovers, they have the core group of six to fall back on.

​​

5. Excavating the Devastation of Settling –--- Similar to the All-or-Nothing Judging is the concept of settling. If you can’t find your one-and-only then you settle for someone who you know you don’t love—and may not even like very much. It’s a humiliating and debilitating situation but it’s the reality for many monogamies. 

​​

        Settling is defined by theknot.com as “when your wants, needs and desires in a relationship are being chronically unmet because your partner is incapable of meeting them.” Marriage.com adds: “Settling in a relationship means being ready to accept less than what you want or deserve. Therefore, settling can be a bad thing.” And finally Psychology Today hits even harder with: “It is common to see someone ‘settling’ in a relationship where they may dismiss their partner’s behavior, give more than they get in return, settle based on financial reasons, or in some instances out of self-sabotage.”

​​

        Then there’s a brutal MadTV skit called Lowered Expectations, many examples of which you can find on YouTube. It begins with sentimental music and an obese couple walking on a sunset beach towards a barbed wire fence. It involved a matchmaking service consisting of people who’ve been rejected by all other services. People who are begging to settle for almost anyone. Ouch!

​

        Having platonic-erotic friendships can dive below this whole sordid paradigm by asserting that: “I’m not settling for a love, I’m adding a friend or friends. And my standards for friendship are much lower than my standards for a lover, and so it’s not settling at all.” In fact, it’s transcending up, up for a happy life despite not finding that one-and-only. And, as explored in the All-or-Nothing Drubbing, some people don’t even want it, but are herded into it by the standard model of what opposite-sex relationships are supposed to look like.

​

        Almost everyone can find somewhat attractive friends—whether physically attractive to you, or possessing other attractive traits. And thus, almost everyone can get some of the good stuff: the somewhat romantic communication, the tenderness bonanza, and some of the hormonal cocktails that happy-ever-after relationships have.

​​

        Yes, to some extent, seeking such platonic-erotic friends is a form of settling. But since it’s not involving your entire life then it’s also not settling. It’s merely taking advantage of the fact that men and women are now capable of being “just” friends. That there are many more benefits of cross-sex friendships than just sex. Something Harry and Sally actually found when they were dating other people, while maintaining a friendship with each other. That’s some of the most gratifying parts of the film, when Harry and Sally are talking to each other on late-night phone calls as “just” friends.

​​

        In addition, PEFs can sometimes blossom into non-settling romances. Because they grow on you. The wonderful aspects of the person, the inherent, somewhat romantic aspects of such cross-sex relationships, and the continual enjoyment of hits of testest, dopenoser, and, as the relationship becomes more trusting and familiar vasoxy’s, vasopressin and oxytocin.

​​

        You may find that: “Holy smokes! I really love this person. To marry or monogamize with them would not be settling at all. And that photo beauty or handsome prince I’d idolized before is actually a selfish beast that I’m so glad I avoided.”

​

        Or PEFs can sustain you until you find what you want. What to do with PEFs when and if you do find what you want will be discussed later. But suffice it to say that since the PEF is not, by definition, a traditional romantic union with all the social conventions that reinforce it, then it can turn into anything you want it to be—or you and your PEF want it to be. It will be modified if you do find the lover you’ve been longing for, but it doesn’t have to be ditched. In fact, your new lover may be happy to have another same-sex friend as part of your package, and even happier that they don’t have to provide all your cross-sex needs.

​​

6. The Over-Zealous Jealousy Jinx ---– There’s a big debate about whether jealousy is mostly a naturally occurring emotion or mostly a social convention. I believe it’s both, and present in different ratios depending on the person. But for some people with poor social skills, or who believe in a nation-of-two approach to life, it can be gigantic and destructive—or constructive. Whereas in some other people, usually people with a good support system outside of their love life, it can be minimal.

​​​

        Of course, jealousy has more to do with an established sexual relationship rather than a PEF or Friend Zone friendship. Since the sought after one of the friendship isn’t per se sexually involved with the seeking one, then there’s no reason to be jealous—according to society’s rules. But many Friend Zone friends still will be jealous. Yet you obviously don’t own the Friend Zone person as some people believe they own a spouse or a lover. Yet you can still hope that Friend Zone or PEF friends are guided by the Golden Rule rather than the “all’s fair in love and war” Geneva Convention.

​

        Anthropologist Margaret Meade specialized in studying the social convention differences in sexual relationships among human societies. She concluded: 

​​

     The most casual survey of primitive literature betrays the numerous ways in which exclusive sexual possession of the spouse is modified and contravened. It demonstrates how the self-interest of the wife and husband is identified, not with exclusive possession of each other, but with the appropriate carrying out, whether it be wife lending, wife exchange, ceremonial license or religious ceremony, of these very contraventions.[35]       

​​​

        In other words, jealousy may or may not be genetically coded in humans, but it certainly is a social convention. How jealous you get in a society depends upon how society teaches you to interpret that situation, as well as your own personal and evolutionary feelings. Meade notes “a society” in Africa where women sue their husbands for not taking other wives. She concludes: 

​​

        If then jealousy be not a matter of a normal man [or woman] defending his natural rights, but a frightened man [or woman] defending himself against the infringement of rights not natural but merely guaranteed by his society, we can admit frankly that it is an unfortunate phenomenon, with nothing to be said in its favor.  

​​​

        Jealousy is not a barometer by which the depth of love can be read. It merely records the degree of a lover’s insecurity [in society] … It is a miserable state of feeling having its origin in the sense of insecurity and inferiority.[36]   

​​

        Meade’s contention that the emotions of jealousy are more about concern for society’s rules than the jealous person’s innate anger makes the needlessly jealous person, say Shakespeare’s Othello, even more futile, even more tragic and laughable. The polyamory community has a concept that comes from a place of expansive love rather than a place of jealous need. It’s called compersion. Compersion consists of genuine happiness towards your partner’s sexual and/or emotional bond with someone else. It’s in part, a realization that if anyone in the polyamory pod has gotten substantially happier because of a new love, everyone will benefit from the new lover’s lifted spirits, and hormonal feel-good.

​​​

        Then again, there’s a polyamory book about how to reduce jealousy called The Jealousy Workbook: exercises and insights for managing open relationships, by Kathy Labriola.[37] So even the polyamorous have problems with it. Love is messy. And that’s a vast understatement. It brings up mountains of emotions. Deal with it. Role play with it. Study it.

​​​​

        I’m in no way endorsing polyamory. I’m only noting that the polyamorous, just as the monogamists, have something to teach us about our own particular, totally individual, sexuality.

​​

        On the other hand, 30% of females and 5% percent of males murdered between 1997 and 2017 were killed by an intimate, opposite-sex friend according to the US Bureau of Justice, or Intimate Partner Violence, IPV. According to the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, about 14,000 to 18,000 people were murdered for all reasons during those years. My guess is that many of these IPV murders had to do with jealousy, though there are no stats on it that I could find.

​​​

        The horror. Intimate Partner Violence. The title says it all. Your most holy, restful, secure, peaceful intimate relationship becomes one of imminent violence any moment, raging out-of-control hatred and possible maiming or death.

​

        And, as noted, just because jealousy in a Friend Zone situation makes little sense, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It does. It often will. But with FZ role playing, with understanding of how often social conventions are the root of the jealousy rather than actual, biological- and evolutionary-inspired suffering, jealousy can be decreased and the romantic and hormonal benefits better appreciated. Or we can rise above biological and evolutionary imperatives. “We are spirits in a material world” as Sting sings in song of the same name.[38]

​​​

7. The Leading-on Impeding ------ The mostly feminine view that if a man declares his romantic intentions and the lady doesn’t want that, then to keep seeing him is leading him on. Though of course this can be the other way around too. Men can lead on women.

​​​​​

        The idea is that the party more attracted will eventually get their heart broken as they fall ever more in romantic love, while the other party remains indifferent, or mostly indifferent, to those aspects of the friendship. It’s a major aspect of why PEFs are not more prevalent. Yet, we are more mature about this than we once were. We now understand that sexual dynamics enter into many relationships, and so the one more in romantic love should not naively go down the evermore-in-love, evermore-heart-broken path. Yes, we’ll have many sighs over not being able to take the friendship further, but we’ll understand that rarely do two people have equal sexual attraction to each other. And the same goes for other attractions. One is deeply interested in movies and knows the directors of most of the Oscar winning ones. The other only knows that they like movies or this or that leading lady or man. 

​​

        Here’s a dialogue about such a situation with all the issues on the table. But once platonic erotic friendships become more commonplace, these issues won’t have to be so explicitly discussed:

​​​

Him: I want to have sex, or a life-long sexual relationship, with you.      

​​

Her: Well I don’t want to have even one-time sex with you, much less a long-term sexual relationship, but I like you and would like to be friends. You think you can control your impulses enough not to feel oppressive?

​​

Him: Yes. Just tell me when I transgress. Then that behavior will be off the table. Do you promise not to take advantage of my longing by excessive flirtation making me think you’re going to change your mind about sex, and so gain greater power over me? Do you promise you won’t abuse the sexual advantage you have over me to get me to make significant sacrifices for you I wouldn’t do otherwise?

​​​

Her: Yes. But I do like you a little in that way, just not enough to go all-the-way. Or even part of the way. So you may need to handle a little flirtation.

​​

Him: I can do that. And it’s okay if I enjoy your flirtation with some dopenoser highs? But I won’t be the one who initiates more touching if you eventually decide you like me more.

​​

Her: Fair enough. Then again, you may need to probe a bit if I get really flirtatious. You can handle a little rejection just in case I don’t mean it?

​​

Him: Yep. Asking somebody to form a sexual relationship with you is a big thing, so I won’t interpret a little flirtatious excitement as proof that you want the whole enchilada.

​​

        All these qualifications show what a messy thing such overlapping attractions and non-attractions are. Yet, is it better than having no erotic in your life at all? Is it better than a lonely Saturday night, and the prospect of endless lonely nights?

​​​

        Now it’s true that in some such friendships, the sexual attraction by the one attracted may be so great that it’s too painful to be around the other person. If that’s the case, then you probably should break it off. Unless you can endure such large doses of longing. But most cases of sexual attraction are not that intense. They are mostly platonic, somewhat erotic, relationships.

​​

8. The Lack-of-Education Privation ------ We mostly rely on parents and peers to teach adolescents about sex and relationships. Yet the parents and peers were taught by their parents and peers too, none of whom knew much. Thus, we form sexual relationships without much understanding of them, we also form Friend Zone friendships with little understanding of what we’re getting into.

​​​

        Having several classes in middle and high school, as well as several in college would give humanity a chance against the powerful forces of sexuality. Extensive role playing as part of this could prepare people for almost every variation that can occur in sexuality, from being highly attracted, to being low-down heart broken, to being highly repulsed. To being the friend in the FZ who wants more but isn’t going to get it. To humanely be the FZ friend who doesn’t’ want more. It’s all happened before hundreds of millions, (billions?) of times. Is humanity going to go over and over these same ole plots for eternity? Sure, probably. Yet maybe less so if we study and role play them.

​​

9. The Times-A-Wasting Hastiness – The view that if a relationship that has romantic undertones isn’t headed towards sex, towards a traditional romantic relationship, then it’s a waste of time.

​​​

        If you’re getting something out of it, it’s not a waste of time. Be it loneliness prevention; financial support; a different way of looking at the world; some testest, dopenoser, or vasoxy hits; admission into the Holy Cathedral of Sexual Transcendence; etc. Like any friendship, you have to determine whether it’s beneficial enough or not, but it’s not wasting time being a friend to someone who may be a significant part of your support system for a year, a decade or more.

        Many social conventions cause us to project into the future or worry about the past. Try to enjoy the now of the PEF. There’s ambient sexuality all around humanity. The sexuality of platonic-erotic friends is some of it, the part we’re trying to maximize. 

​​​​​

10. The Dirty-Old Man Catch-as-Catch Can ----- This is similar to the Harry-Sally dilemma of once the sexual interest motivation is out there, you can’t just be friends anymore, though this time it’s because it’s too icky. Too sordid. Too weird. One is enjoying the sexual dynamics of the relationship, and the other isn’t. Sort of dirty-old man situation, in which one partner is enjoying the hormones mentioned above, while the other is not. Only the man, or woman in a PEF may still be a vital, young-enough person.

​​

        Yet, if the one benefitting from the equivalent of dirty-old man kicks doesn’t transgress any touching or other barriers that their friend has established, is it really dirty? Or is it just part of the reality of being in a platonic-erotic friendship in which one side is attracted and the other isn’t? 

​​

        Women should realize that, given the fact that they are free to work and go almost anywhere now, they’ll be many situations like this. The coworker that’s obviously attracted to them and with whom they have to spend lots of time being the unavoidable example for many. Some people may shout sexual harassment at this situation, no matter how discreet the male or female coworker is at keeping their desires to themselves.

​​

        And having just plain friends you like because of similar interests or other, nonsexual qualities, will become a lot more common too. And one of those friends may be sexually attracted and the other not. The novelty and ick factor will be submerged in the overall joy of friendship.  

​​

        And so there’s a greater attraction on one side than the other. So what? That’s even true in most sexual relationships. One side is more attracted than the other. As long as the guy, or woman, can keep their hands off you, it just means they like you all the more. No, it’s not pure, agape love, but it’s a whole lot better than no love—or not enough friends.

In addition, the PEF friend who isn’t getting the hormonal and romantic kick is still getting a heightened loyalty kick based on their sexual attractiveness. Despite efforts not to profit from the Leading-On Impeding, from taking advantage of the imbalance of affections, there will be some taking advantage. So that balances out the ick factor. Like: “I’ll absorb ick if you absorb some taking advantage of the situation.”

​​

        If the PEF has many other qualities on which it’s based, say interest in literature, or interest in sports, then the ick factor can be a minor part of the overall friendship. And as long as the one enjoying the sexual aspects is discreet about it, the ickiness can stay under wraps, and rarely be noticed.  

​​

        Of course, if the person is too oppressive in their sexual overtures, you can’t be friends with them. It becomes a constant effort to block advances or avoid hurt feelings. And again, too icky, too grotesque. And to not be too oppressive is something many will have to learn in a post-Friend Zone society. But it can easily be done. Keep your hands to yourself! Keep you desires under verbal raps. Yes, your attractions will be expressed in other, more socially acceptable ways, but maybe not enough maybe to make a friendship impossible.

​​​

11. The Attraction-Distraction Barrier –--- The view that if you have a good, attractive, yet platonic friend, that any person to whom you’re “serious” about, any person whom you might consider a life-long mate, will be scared or pushed away. This is because they’ll think that they can’t have you totally and they’ll always be competition.

​​​

        They’ll think you’re not really available, that if you really cared for them, you’d “break up” so to speak with any opposite-sex friends, any friends that you have any kind of flirtation with, any

        This concern bleeds into what to do about platonic erotic friends if you find what you believe may be your one-and-only mate. Dump them? Tell them thank-you, it was fun, but now you have to go for something serious?

        This quandary will be explored more in depth later, but to some extent, the platonic-erotic friend should have expected this possibility since it is such a well-established thing. It’s even dramatized in a Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Pillow Talk, when Rock realizes he’s in love with Doris and he calls up all his—probably all-the-way sexual, but not serious—girlfriends. He tells them that he’ll have to break up with them because he’s found Mrs. Right. But we’re looking for something more humane here.

​​

        To another extent, the possible new, monogamous love will be more used to such a situation. They’ll know that many people have platonic-erotic friends, and that they are not a significant challenge to a monogamy. Thus, they won’t require that their prospective lover dump them. In fact, they’ll come to see it’s good for their spouse to have such friends because:

​​​

a. They won’t have to supply all his or her sex-based needs (not sex sex-based needs, but other needs provided by the opposite sex, this side of sex).

​​​

b. Such platonic-erotic friends will actually enhance their monogamy because it will keep the joie de vivre high, the sexual hormones stirred up and their partners will bring home those jazzed-up hormones for a more exciting sex life.

​​

        But the standard interpretation is that jealousy will prevent the perspective spouse from tolerating such friends. For it is true, if they are having strained relations, their spouse may run to their PEF for understanding and to some degree, sexual, but still platonic solace. Or they might be considered so available that a full-scale sexual affair will eventually break out. Thus, to allow such a PEF would be to give up one of the inherent powers of keeping your relationship monogamous: the threat of loneliness. The threat that you will lose any contact with members of the opposite sex, lose all the feminine or masculine qualities that many find essential to a well-balanced and well-nurtured existence.

​​

12. Society’s Propriety Anxiety - The societal view that if a man and woman are together a great deal, they’re almost certainly having sex.

​​​

        In today’s women’s liberation world, a man and a woman hanging out may be doing so because they’re working together. If we assume they’re having sex, then this work situation may cause their monogamies to fail. So we have to get beyond that assumption.

​​

        Only if you catch a couple in flagrante delicto, in the act of committing a crime as the saying goes—naked in bed together and penis inside the vagina—can you assume they’re having sex. Even if they’re together all night in the house of one or the other. PEFs can spend the night together without having sex.

​​​​​​