Platonic Frienships Between Opposite Sexes

[sing]

In another topic, I kept hearing people state that it is impossible for men and women to have platonic friendships. I disagree with this. I have mainly male friends, and am in a long distance committed relationship(getting married in June), and I haven’t had any problems. I can understand that some people have problems with this, but i think it can be done(a similar situation is staying friends with an ex. It’s very hard, and some people can’t do it, but I have).

To further complicate the matter, I was wondering what about other situations. According to Catholic teaching, people with tendencies towards same sex attraction are supposed to be celibate. So they have to have platonic relationships with everyone they know. Obviously, gay people wouldn’t have problems with platonic friendships with the opposite sex, does this mean it’s impossible for them to have platonic friendships with the same sex? (for my take on this, well, i happen to be bisexual, and haven’t had any problems while living with 5 other females, and haven’t had problems with other female friends)

I’m not trying to start a debate, I just wonder what people’s opinions are.

 

[lotusblossom]

When I’ve discussed this with others, and say that there is no such thing as a platonic friendship between opposite sexes, there is such thing as a friendship being platonic at points. However, at some point, probably in the beginning, one of those members is attracted to the other. It doesn’t necessarily mean it lasts or that the friendship ends once that is over, but at some point in time, it’s present. I am friends with several men - some I’ve dated in the past, some I’ve been attracted to, and some have been attracted to me - none of whom I would ever be attracted to now, esp. with me being married. However, my husband is friends with these men too. My husband’s best childhood friend is a woman, and they dated for a week, and then became just friends again. So, now it’s platonic, but before it wasn’t.

As for those who have same-sex attractions, I have no idea.

 

[LSK]

this is my experience - because I am a faithful, obedient daughter of the Holy Mother Church all my friendships with men are platonic. At this point in my life the Lord has not seen fit to put anyone in my path who is available to marry. Therefore ALL my friendships with men are platonic.

If the man is married, then guess WHAT…It is MY responsibility to respect those boundaries and to make sure I honor his wife.

 

[chevalier]

Platonic isn’t really frienship. A platonic friendship strictly speaking would have to be a friendship without physical expression. Platonic love would be love without physical expression and that’s what the concept is about - a man loving a woman but the whole thing being an intellectual and maybe spiritual matter without physically expressed sexuality. That is not exactly friendship and not exactly agape, either. While there’s nothing wrong with physical expression of friendship, there’s something wrong with a married person harbouring some man-woman kind of feelings for a non-spouse, even if it doesn’t get to sex. Therefore, I don’t like the expression “platonic friendship”. People say “platonic relationship” and they think everything’s all right, it’s even all right to call it a relationship, sex being out of the picture making it all fine. Nope. A relationship is a bond and a tie.

All in all, I would apply Occam’s razor on this: what’s love is love and what’s friendship is friendship. Friendship is fine. Extramarital affairs are not, sexually expressed or not.

Consequently, I would ask: is staying within the boundaries of friendship possible between a man and a woman? I would give a positive answer.

You can call me pedantic and accuse me of being anal about semantics or subtle distinctions, but those are actually extremely important with such a serious (and delicate) matter as marriage.

 

[sing]

Platonic isn’t really frienship. A platonic friendship strictly speaking would have to be a friendship without physical expression. Platonic love would be love without physical expression and that’s what the concept is about - a man loving a woman but the whole thing being an intellectual and maybe spiritual matter without physically expressed sexuality. That is not exactly friendship and not exactly agape, either. While there’s nothing wrong with physical expression of friendship, there’s something wrong with a married person harbouring some man-woman kind of feelings for a non-spouse, even if it doesn’t get to sex. Therefore, I don’t like the expression “platonic friendship”. People say “platonic relationship” and they think everything’s all right, it’s even all right to call it a relationship, sex being out of the picture making it all fine. Nope. A relationship is a bond and a tie.

All in all, I would apply Occam’s razor on this: what’s love is love and what’s friendship is friendship. Friendship is fine. Extramarital affairs are not, sexually expressed or not.

Consequently, I would ask: is staying within the boundaries of friendship possible between a man and a woman? I would give a positive answer.

You can call me pedantic and accuse me of being anal about semantics or subtle distinctions, but those are actually extremely important with such a serious (and delicate) matter as marriage.

Thank you for your clarifications. I agree with you that they are important, my problem is that I’m not very good at them. So than you again for your post.

 

[Other_Eric]

There is no such thing as a platonic friendship between individuals of opposite genders that does not invoke scandal. There is no such thing as a platonic friendship between one who has same-sex attractions and anyone.

 

[chevalier]

Thank you for your clarifications. I agree with you that they are important, my problem is that I’m not very good at them. So than you again for your post.

My pleasure. I hope I’ve helped and haven’t led you astray. “Platonic friendship” is common nomenclature, so it’s not your error (assuming we’re at all talking about error and not just a different understanding), but the way things are commonly seen, contrary to Plato’s own ideas and, in my opinion, dangerously so. It may lead to the perception of the difference between marriage and friendship as one consisting mostly in the legality of sexual intercourse. But a spouse is not a friend one’s legal to sleep with. There’s much more to it and one doesn’t need to have sex to cross certain lines.

Maybe this article at Wikipedia will clear up the remaining doubts?

 

[chevalier]

There is no such thing as a platonic friendship between individuals of opposite genders that does not invoke scandal. There is no such thing as a platonic friendship between one who has same-sex attractions and anyone.

Scandal is often in the eye of the beholder. If people have the idea that a man and a woman cannot be friends without lusting for each other and giving in to it, then they will obviously be scandalised by friendship.

Logically, if friendship leads to sexual thoughts or even acts, shouldn’t engagement also, or even more so? And people who are engaged don’t necessarily have sex when the are alone. Not like they are chaperoned most of the time, either. There’s also more room for temptation in case of those engaged than in the case of people who intend only to be friends. However, we see engagement as something good, not evil.

Of course, friendship is still tricky material and one ought to be careful, sure.

 

[sing]

There is no such thing as a platonic friendship between one who has same-sex attractions and anyone.

Please, clarify. I don’t have a clue as to what you mean, unless you want everyone with same sex attraction to become hermits.

 

[kage_ar]

The Cathecism sums it up for me:

**2347 **The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality. Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.

 

[cheddarsox]

Jesus appears to have had friends of both genders.

I have some opposite gender friends about which I’ve never had a sexual thought, and others…that could be tempting if we were not careful.

I don’t know how one could live in this world and not encounter people to whom they are attracted.

I avoid developing relationships with men to whom I am attracted sexually, because I am married.

I think it does depend on the people involved, but for the most part, it is safer and more respectful for married people not to have close, one on one relationships with people of the opposite gender.

 

[LSK]

The Cathecism sums it up for me:

**2347 **The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality. Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.

This is the BEST post yet…thank you for pointing to TRUTH…
It is best then for me to say that all my friendships with men are chaste as I am an obedient daughter of the Holy Mother Church.
I do want to assert, however, that I think when a man or a woman is married it is important for the single person to respect the boundaries of that relationship and not do or say anything that would be disruptive to that marriage. Does that make better sense?

 

[mikew262]

There is no such thing as a platonic friendship between individuals of opposite genders that does not invoke scandal.

That’s wrong. :nope: I’m not saying that some platonic relationships don’t develop into something else sometimes, but it’s entirely possible to have a platonic relationship with somebody of the opposite gender. Been there, done that.

 

[DaveBj]

Back when I was a fed, working at the agency that shall not be named, almost all of my close friends on the job were women. There was never a hint of sexual content in the relationships, and they were also friends with Bonnie. So, yeah, it can be done.

DaveBj