Can a man and a woman "just be friends?"

[thewanderer]

Because of my job and hobbies, I have a lot of male friends (and I am female). All those relationships are platonic and these men have not once shown interest in me (and I am single to them… I am divorced, but I am still going though the tribunal process. But let’s face it… to most non-Catholics, I would be considered single and 100% available). I am not interested in them that way either.

It might just be that everyone has weaknesses and temptations. For some, it’s sex and maybe those people can’t have platonic relationships with the opposite sex. I think sometimes people don’t understand that just because it’s a temptation for them, it’s not necessarily a temptation for everyone else too.

If you want an example of this, here’s a temptation of mine. I can’t have candy in my house. I will think about it and think about it and eventually give in and pig out on it if it’s there. I don’t tell other people it’s “impossible” for them to resist candy just because I can’t. And I don’t assume they must be secret gluttons or deceiving themselves because they tell me they aren’t tempted by it. I am well aware this is my own weakness and that other people that are capable of keeping candy in their houses without becoming gluttonous; but me, I can’t. So I just don’t buy it and don’t have it around.

And yes, it might sound silly and not serious to some. But I think it’s a good analogy. And gluttony is still a deadly sin (and candy isn’t healthy for you either).

This!! Absolutely this! Sure, there are definitely people who can’t have a deep relationship with somene of the sex they are attracted too without also becoming attracted to them, but the fact is that that just isn’t true of all people. And no, its not a matter of being a saint vs a sinner, its simply a matter of different weaknesses and struggles for different people. So yes, it absolutely is possible, however, not for everyone, in fact, not for many people, and, because of that, it is an area that deserves extra caution. Even if you are perfectly fine, the other person might not be. Like everything else in life it is a matter of prudence for each individual to deal with on their own.

 

[DarkLight]

This!! Absolutely this! Sure, there are definitely people who can’t have a deep relationship with somene of the sex they are attracted too without also becoming attracted to them, but the fact is that that just isn’t true of all people. And no, its not a matter of being a saint vs a sinner, its simply a matter of different weaknesses and struggles for different people. So yes, it absolutely is possible, however, not for everyone, in fact, not for many people, and, because of that, it is an area that deserves extra caution. Even if you are perfectly fine, the other person might not be. Like everything else in life it is a matter of prudence for each individual to deal with on their own.

Be careful to not commit a sin in avoiding the occasion of sin, though. My concern is that we’ve justified all sorts of offenses against charity and christian community out of our fear of sex. If I leave my brother isolated out of fear of becoming attracted to him, have I not committed a sin? If I view my brothers and sisters in Christ as potential temptations, is that not in itself a sin in me? A human being is not a slice of cake to be avoided at your own choice.

I’ve had places where I’ve gone into, and it’s mostly men. Christian communities even. If I go in and people seem distant, or like they’re concerned about getting too involved with me, where does that leave me? Do you think I’m likely to go back to that place? Do you think I wouldn’t consider it an insult to be viewed that way? I would rather not share a community with someone who was so shallow as to see me as a temptation, like I was some porn model rather than a sister in Christ!

 

[thewanderer]

Be careful to not commit a sin in avoiding the occasion of sin, though. My concern is that we’ve justified all sorts of offenses against charity and christian community out of our fear of sex. If I leave my brother isolated out of fear of becoming attracted to him, have I not committed a sin? If I view my brothers and sisters in Christ as potential temptations, is that not in itself a sin in me? A human being is not a slice of cake to be avoided at your own choice.

I’ve had places where I’ve gone into, and it’s mostly men. Christian communities even. If I go in and people seem distant, or like they’re concerned about getting too involved with me, where does that leave me? Do you think I’m likely to go back to that place? Do you think I wouldn’t consider it an insult to be viewed that way? I would rather not share a community with someone who was so shallow as to see me as a temptation, like I was some porn model rather than a sister in Christ!

I hope I am not being misunderstood! Of course we don’t want to end up being uncharitable, and that is certainly the other extreme that needs to be avoided. Thats why I said that it all comes down to prudence. It is a careful balance between so many different factors, all of which depend on the individual situation.

 

[manualman]

I had some great (name removed by moderator)ut to add, only realize that I had already done so - YEAR ago! Old thread!

One thing I did NOT point out before is that Francis and Clare had structural controls in place that quite simply made it impossible for them to be taken in by desire. This wasn’t just rigid culture, it was precisely because they were aware of how dangerous to their vows the intimacy of their friendship was. Furthermore, priests and religious take vows of chastity, but do NOT foresake all others the way those married are called to do. Even if they DID fall in love, they had adequately prepared so that such an occurence would not compromise their vows and would have had no negative effect on their respective sanctity.

That’s not analagous to married life. Infidelity is not just about genital contact. Infidelity starts in the heart and ends up being expressed physically. Like I said a year ago, this hardly means it is unwise to have acquaintances of the opposite gender. But I still believe it’s reckless (at best!) for a married man to be emotionally intimate with a woman other than his wife.

 

[Metropolis]

I had some great (name removed by moderator)ut to add, only realize that I had already done so - YEAR ago! Old thread!

One thing I did NOT point out before is that Francis and Clare had structural controls in place that quite simply made it impossible for them to be taken in by desire. This wasn’t just rigid culture, it was precisely because they were aware of how dangerous to their vows the intimacy of their friendship was. Furthermore, priests and religious take vows of chastity, but do NOT foresake all others the way those married are called to do. Even if they DID fall in love, they had adequately prepared so that such an occurence would not compromise their vows and would have had no negative effect on their respective sanctity.

That’s not analagous to married life. Infidelity is not just about genital contact. Infidelity starts in the heart and ends up being expressed physically. Like I said a year ago, this hardly means it is unwise to have acquaintances of the opposite gender. But I still believe it’s reckless (at best!) for a married man to be emotionally intimate with a woman other than his wife.

What do you think about those with bisexual attractions though? (everyone seems to forget about us) Are we not supposed to have any intimate friendships with anyone other than family simply because we are a married person with bisexual attractions? That would be hard for me because all of my family lives 2000+ miles away. (as I stated in an earlier post though, I do not put myself in situations where I am alone for any extended period of time with someone I find attractive) Some don’t realize not being friends with the gender/s you are attracted to means that means no friends for some.

 

[DarkLight]

I hope I am not being misunderstood! Of course we don’t want to end up being uncharitable, and that is certainly the other extreme that needs to be avoided. Thats why I said that it all comes down to prudence. It is a careful balance between so many different factors, all of which depend on the individual situation.

I think…the biggest danger here is in how we view the temptation. If I see sweet things as a temptation to gluttony, that is merely a reflection of my own weaknesses towards them. But if I view my brother or sister in Christ as a temptation, that is a much more serious matter. I would even go so far as to say that I have already sinned in my attitude towards them.

Think of what the church teaches about sexuality in marriage - that the husband and wife should never use each other for their own pleasure (even if it could result in a child), but should strive towards unity in their actions. Something of the same could be applied here. It is not licit for a person to view another as an object for their own pleasure. Such temptation veers towards this, viewing the other person primarily as an object of forbidden pleasure, rather than a person to be related to properly.

The man who cannot trust himself to be around a woman is, I think, already in sin, in his inability to relate to her properly.

 

[manualman]

What do you think about those with bisexual attractions though?

Read the older posts in the thread. I and others gave some feedback already.

Same sex attractions are not in accordance with how God built humans to interact. No different than how heterosexual lust is not how God built men to view women. We all have difficulties and burdens that are manifestations of original sin.

But your feelings don’t define who you are. If you are a man, you were built to relate differently to men than to women. My advice (admittedly as an outsider since I’m not in your shoes) would be to trust what you know over what you feel. You may or may not ever be rid of attractions to other men, but you WERE made to be capable of strong nonsexual friendships with men.

And if you’re single, it’s rather moot, isn’t it? You can be as close as you like to single women! Who knows??

(And of course the same goes for women who experience bisexual attraction)

 

[thewanderer]

I think…the biggest danger here is in how we view the temptation. If I see sweet things as a temptation to gluttony, that is merely a reflection of my own weaknesses towards them. But if I view my brother or sister in Christ as a temptation, that is a much more serious matter. I would even go so far as to say that I have already sinned in my attitude towards them.

Think of what the church teaches about sexuality in marriage - that the husband and wife should never use each other for their own pleasure (even if it could result in a child), but should strive towards unity in their actions. Something of the same could be applied here. It is not licit for a person to view another as an object for their own pleasure. Such temptation veers towards this, viewing the other person primarily as an object of forbidden pleasure, rather than a person to be related to properly.

The man who cannot trust himself to be around a woman is, I think, already in sin, in his inability to relate to her properly.

The difficulty I see is that we are not always culpable for our weaknessess. A lot of which spring directly from the structure of our individual bodies, for instance, some people have a strong sex drive and some a weak sex drive and thats just the way it is. Its not something that they caused and its not something they can change. Its a little harsh to start trying to make someone feel guilty for something they have not caused and cannot change. Now, admittedly, there are some people whose inability to be around the opposite sex without developing innapropriate relationships is their fault, but this is not true for all. But even with that, the way we are is never sinful, it is what we do with ourselves that is sinful (including the actions we took which shaped us badly). In other words, the inability to relate properly to the opposite sex is never sinful. What is sinful is any actions we we may have done to cause this problem in our way of relating to others and whether or not we act upon that inclination.

 

[Metropolis]

Read the older posts in the thread. I and others gave some feedback already.

Same sex attractions are not in accordance with how God built humans to interact. No different than how heterosexual lust is not how God built men to view women. We all have difficulties and burdens that are manifestations of original sin.

But your feelings don’t define who you are. If you are a man, you were built to relate differently to men than to women. My advice (admittedly as an outsider since I’m not in your shoes) would be to trust what you know over what you feel. You may or may not ever be rid of attractions to other men, but you WERE made to be capable of strong nonsexual friendships with men.

And if you’re single, it’s rather moot, isn’t it? You can be as close as you like to single women! Who knows??

(And of course the same goes for women who experience bisexual attraction)

I am a female, by the way and I am a chaste and married one. I just find it funny when people tell married folks not to have relationships with those of the opposite sex because they may develop feelings, but that doesn’t work for bisexuals because we are attracted to both so that would mean, by that logic we can’t have any friends once we are married. That would be incredibly isolating and unhealthy as a human. We are made for close relationships.

I saw people address homosexuality in the thread, but bisexuality is VERY different because that means no gender is “safe” as far as the possibility of developing attractions.

Some have told me in the past since I am a married bisexual, I can’t have any close friendships and that is just “my cross to carry”. lol. That is a good way to go insane. By the way (as I have said in an earlier post) I have only developed romantic feelings for one friend in my life and he is now my husband. Every other friendship has been platonic.

 

[DarkLight]

The difficulty I see is that we are not always culpable for our weaknessess. A lot of which spring directly from the structure of our individual bodies, for instance, some people have a strong sex drive and some a weak sex drive and thats just the way it is. Its not something that they caused and its not something they can change. Its a little harsh to start trying to make someone feel guilty for something they have not caused and cannot change. Now, admittedly, there are some people whose inability to be around the opposite sex without developing innapropriate relationships is their fault, but this is not true for all. But even with that, the way we are is never sinful, it is what we do with ourselves that is sinful (including the actions we took which shaped us badly). In other words, the inability to relate properly to the opposite sex is never sinful. What is sinful is any actions we we may have done to cause this problem in our way of relating to others and whether or not we act upon that inclination.

So it’s better to make someone feel like they’re inherently a temptation to someone else? Just be being born a member of the opposite sex? To my mind that’s just barely a step above treating them like a prostitute. Culpable or not, it’s a very serious matter to treat another human that way.

Edit: Fair or not - my point is that when you say you can’t relate properly to the opposite sex, you are putting a burden on them. You’re putting a burden on those around you by calling them a temptation. Not their actions, but their very being is a temptation to you. I want people to see that is an incredible burden to lay on someone else, to say that you can’t interact with them because of who God created them to be. I’ve lived and worked around such an environment, and the one thing I can say was that it made me feel extremely degraded as a woman. Guilty even, but guilty not for anything I had done, but for being a woman and thus a source of temptation. All covered up with pious language about “avoiding temptation” and “men’s weakness”, of course.

 

[EasterJoy]

So it’s better to make someone feel like they’re inherently a temptation to someone else? Just be being born a member of the opposite sex? To my mind that’s just barely a step above treating them like a prostitute. Culpable or not, it’s a very serious matter to treat another human that way.

It is not fair to put honest children in the same room with a plate of cookes and tell them “don’t touch the cookies.” Sure, a great many of them won’t take one, maybe most won’t, but if one does fall, the person who provided the near occasion of sin was also partly to blame.

We owe it to ourselves to keep ourselves and others out of near occasions of sin. Men and women can do this without avoiding friendships altogether. Men and women who do not think they have to avoid temptation can ruin the lives of many people by their pride. That isn’t making a prostitute out of anyone, but just recognizing that we all have our human weaknesses and need to plan according.

 

[DarkLight]

It is not fair to put honest children in the same room with a plate of cookes and tell them “don’t touch the cookies.” Sure, a great many of them won’t take one, maybe most won’t, but if one does fall, the person who provided the near occasion of sin was also partly to blame.

We owe it to ourselves to keep ourselves and others out of near occasions of sin. Men and women can do this without avoiding friendships altogether. Men and women who do not think they have to avoid temptation can ruin the lives of many people by their pride. That isn’t making a prostitute out of anyone, but just recognizing that we all have our human weaknesses and need to plan according.

“Ruin lives” - yes, that’s why some of us left the church in the first place. Because no matter where we went or what we did, we ruined some poor boy’s life. Do you really know what it is like, to be treated as a potential temptation? To have someone that genuinely regards you, as a person, as a danger to their spirituality - not for anything you’ve done, but for the body God gave you? Even to be compared to a bit of candy, like we were just another object to be enjoyed or disregarded as it benefited someone else? I’ve seen far too many people who would willingly sacrifice one soul for the benefit of another’s weakness, and that’s what I see going on here.

 

[Neildown]

“Ruin lives” - yes, that’s why some of us left the church in the first place. Because no matter where we went or what we did, we ruined some poor boy’s life. Do you really know what it is like, to be treated as a potential temptation? To have someone that genuinely regards you, as a person, as a danger to their spirituality - not for anything you’ve done, but for the body God gave you? Even to be compared to a bit of candy, like we were just another object to be enjoyed or disregarded as it benefited someone else? I’ve seen far too many people who would willingly sacrifice one soul for the benefit of another’s weakness, and that’s what I see going on here.

God doesn’t require people to think of themselves as a danger to everyone around them. People who don’t understand God’s teachings, who tell it to someone else who interprets it that way sometimes do though. Moderation in everything.

 

[Sarcelle]

Without a romantic entanglement developing?

I say no. One or the other is gonna eventually get smitten.

I know with me, if I was friends with a girl I was still looking for a way to get her to like me more or she was doing the same
and sooner or later one likes the other more or they :yup:

So if you have an opposite sex friend-------watch out, if you’re not after them, they’re after you. :yup:

What say you?

ps----same with gays, only same sex friends instead.

Judging by the number of pages in this thread this topic has been discussed ad inifitum.

The answer depends on which man and which woman.

One example would be brother and sister. Of course they can be friends.

Personally speaking, I have had some male friends who did not find me attractive and we remained friends and some male friends who did and would like to pursue the relationship further. Depends on the relationship between the man and woman. Not all relationships between men and women boil down to romance.

 

[EasterJoy]

“Ruin lives” - yes, that’s why some of us left the church in the first place. Because no matter where we went or what we did, we ruined some poor boy’s life. Do you really know what it is like, to be treated as a potential temptation? To have someone that genuinely regards you, as a person, as a danger to their spirituality - not for anything you’ve done, but for the body God gave you? Even to be compared to a bit of candy, like we were just another object to be enjoyed or disregarded as it benefited someone else? I’ve seen far too many people who would willingly sacrifice one soul for the benefit of another’s weakness, and that’s what I see going on here.

Well, yeah, I go to lunch with men all the time…alone. We meet in public places, we take reasonable precautions, we talk about nothing that we would not say with our spouses present, and we have plenty of room to be good friends. I’m not talking about wearing a burka and only going out as needed to buy groceries!! I am only talking about the common-sense realization that good friends of the opposite sex do fall in love sometimes, and then what becomes of that great friendship? It is a betrayal to a great marriage. If you are single, perhaps it could become a betrayal of your chastity or an unfair stirring up of your friend’s emotions, because you have no intention of marrying him and yet you gave him ample reason to believe you might fall in love with him. Again: what becomes of your friendship then?

Other than the fact that I do not worry about “intimate” situations with my female friends, these actual situations aren’t a lot different than my female friends. I think if you’re going to be the friend of a married person, whether your own gender or not, it is your duty to be a friend of the marriage. That means putting certain limits on your friendship that would not be there if your friend did not have family obligations. You don’t compete with the marital relationship, but always act so as to enhance it. It is no different than that, in my mind. Only the nature of the temptations that a same-gender or opposite-gender friendship can present to a married person are different, IMHO.

 

[EasterJoy]

God doesn’t require people to think of themselves as a danger to everyone around them. People who don’t understand God’s teachings, who tell it to someone else who interprets it that way sometimes do though. Moderation in everything.

Exactly. The desire to avoid being a near occasion of sin doesn’t mean that it is within your power to remove concupiscence in your friends. It means you take reasonable steps to avoid inflaming it or weakening the person’s resolve to act virtuously, that’s all.

 

[Sarcelle]

Well, yeah, I go to lunch with men all the time…alone. We meet in public places, we take reasonable precautions, we talk about nothing that we would not say with our spouses present, and we have plenty of room to be good friends. I’m not talking about wearing a burka and only going out as needed to buy groceries!! I am only talking about the common-sense realization that good friends of the opposite sex do fall in love sometimes, and then what becomes of that great friendship? It is a betrayal to a great marriage. If you are single, perhaps it could become a betrayal of your chastity or an unfair stirring up of your friend’s emotions, because you have no intention of marrying him and yet you gave him ample reason to believe you might fall in love with him.

Other than the fact that I do not worry about “intimate” situations with my female friends, these actual situations aren’t a lot different than my female friends. I think if you’re going to be the friend of a married person, whether your own gender or not, it is your duty to be a friend of the marriage. That means putting certain limits on your friendship that would not be there if your friend did not have family obligations. You don’t compete with the marital relationship, but always act so as to enhance it. It is no different than that, in my mind. Only the nature of the temptations that a same-gender or opposite-gender friendship can present to a married person are different, IMHO.

I usually am friends with couples and I tend to treat husband and wife as a unit. I respect marriage a lot so I use prudence when dealing with married male friends.

 

[EasterJoy]

I usually am friends with couples and I tend to treat husband and wife as a unit. I respect marriage a lot so I use prudence when dealing with married male friends.

That is OK, too. You really have to play it by ear, too. There are guys who were my high school friends whom I would never see alone without their wives, because either their wives are not OK with it or because I pick up a “romantic vibe” from them. It’s exercising common sense and really being honest to the point of erring on the side of caution.

You have to be a friend to the marriage to be a friend to a married person. That is the bottom line.

 

[DarkLight]

I work in an area that’s almost entirely men (to the point of frequently being the only woman around). I’m also in an area where having one or two people staying late in a locked building, or working at all hours on a project, is quite common. Or in some cases even travelling and sharing rooms with partners, since none of us can afford solo accommodation and travel is part of the deal.

Unfortunately I’ve found this sort of attitude causes a lot of problems. Many of my coworkers are good friends. Some of them I’ve met their wives; some I haven’t. It depends on the partner. But if someone’s not comfortable spending time alone with me, that means I pay the price in terms of not getting the same amount of support and cooperation that my male colleagues do. I’ve had it happen, where men don’t want to work with me because their wives wouldn’t be comfortable, or they don’t think they can control themselves. Guess who pays the price?

I’ve seen the same thing happen in church. If most of the people interested in theology in the area are men, what happens to a woman who’s interested if the men aren’t comfortable working with a woman? If they’re worried it might be an occasion of sin? Remember not all of us have the resources to just go somewhere else - if the local area isn’t welcoming, that means we just don’t get to study our faith unless we do it all on our own.

 

[Rose71]

Darklight, I know exactly what you mean, having been there myself. Nobody likes to be thought of as a liability just because of their gender and it really is not right or fair.

I’m with the people here who say it depends entirely on the man and woman concerned and in a work situation, I think wives / husbands need to accept and understand that work colleagues often do need to spend time together and that’s that. As adults, there are many times we need to exercise self-control. The analogy of the cookies comes in again. In the grown-up world, there are plates of cookies all over the place but as adults, we have a duty to ourselves and society to leave them on the plate! If we can’t manage that, should we be in the workplace at all? If you can’t trust your husband - why did you marry him?

A few years ago, I actually left a party because of a group of married women who were all people I’d known since a baby and all of whom knew I attended Mass regularly decided to make me feel utterly unwelcome because I had dared to come by myself. I can’t see how such behaviour is Christian, let alone Catholic.