Rak Chavayrim

OK I'm going to put the dramatics of my life on hold for now and return to the riveting social discussions that gave this blog a record number of hits and comments. Today we shall discuss the timeless issue (timeless in the post WWII sense) of the male-female platonic friends thing. This has, obviously, been an issue in my life, and also a reccuring theme in every book I've read in the last two months (including the flimsy but decent "Booty Nomad", uninspired "Love Monkey", interestingly written in the second person-future tense, but ultimately abrupt, and slightly insipid "Behind Everman", and another excellent Jonathon Tropper book "Everything Changes"- I highly recommend the latter.) Ok that's it for the unneccecary plugs- back to the issue.

Some say it's just not possible for a guy and a girl to just be friend; sex (in some form or another) always gets in the way. Others say that's crap and that it's not only possible, but prevalent. I personally hold somewhere in the middle- I think you can be friends as long as BOTH parties are not attracted to one another (Jessica's constant offensive odor has been the support beam of our long, always platonic friendship). Of course I have other female friends who are certainly pretty, but I'm just not attracted to them, thereby ensuring the friendship's survival (you can be friends with a pals boy/girlfriend but only to certain extent. Getting too close leads to suspicion in many cases, and if doesn't, it probably should). Sooner or later -and it's often later as one tends not to want to "ruin the friendship"-attraction can become an issue in some cases, once it does the friendship can be in serious trouble. In many cases, one does his/her best to push past it and continue with the friendship not realizing that they can never have the same sort of "comrade equality" and social ease he/she has with friends of the same gender that they aren't checking out instinctively when the opportunity presents itself. In the bad cases someone speaks up, the other party isn't interested and the friendship is either ruined or must take a hiatus and then can restart, but only with a good deal of effort from both XX and XY (e.g. Joey and Rachel). Then there's the whole fool-around-friends thing. This probably deserves it's own blog, but in a nutshell: you're not platonic if your physical with someone, it just goes against the definition. And even if you think you "have an understanding" I promise you that one of you will get his/her emotions involved and then you got yourself a nice fluffy matzoh ball. Fool-around-friends either start real relationships or never have real friendships. Prove me wrong.
But then there's everyone's favorite case: The Harry and Sally scenario, when the (often best) friends realize that everything they're looking for is right in front of them, and they just needed to muster up the guts to do something about it. They manage to say something, work through the initial awkwardness, and quite often have happy beginnings (the only true happy ending is dying pain free completely content with your life, everything else is just a new happy beginning). I'm sure we all know dozens of couples like this. I have two siblings who married their spouses under these circumstances. It just seems to be the way things work a lot of the time in todays world. A cliche', yes, but one of the better ones (as I'm betting most people who this worked for are quite happy).
Now there are several sub-categories within this whole friends-to-couple case. Often one party is interested in more from the get go, while the other isn't, and the first party recognizes they're not getting the right signals and settles for a "friendship". Sometimes a real friendship ensues, often it does not. "Sex" (love, attraction, chauvinism...whatever you want to call it) gets in the way. The worst case is when the nerdy guy becomes the consoling friend to the girl he has a crush on, ensentionally becoming a giant pillow to lean on. He's hoping eventually she'll realize how he is more than just a "great friend" and something can happen. This is dangerous. A lot of the time the guy doesn't say an poorything, the girl ends up with someone else, and the sad schmo has do his best to try to be happy for her (which of course he is on some level, but c'mon, basically he is jealous and miserable, standing in the corner at the wedding drinking his third, pathetic martini, wishing it was him with the girl). A lot of these guys are just too scared of being rejected, and I can totally empathize with this. But I say that the guy has to either go for it or get out fast. Perhaps the only chance he'll ever have of really being friends (in whatever sense) is if he takes the plunge. If he plays it right she might actually respond, and you have a happy beginning (though be a gentleman and be honest; do not take the Frank T.J. Mackey approach from "Magnolia", succesful as it may seem- if you really like the girl you want a relationship, not sex). Sometimes she might say no, and the aforementioned "hiatus-work hard at the healing" scenario can ensue. But not saying anything, doing nothing with one's feelings, sitting idly back and not taking a chance is just the wrong way to go. It reflects a lack of confidence, and a willingness to just take punches. He has to fight for the girl if that's what he really wants, and even if he doesn't succeed, I guarantee you he'll feel better than if he just stood by and watched his dreams get away because he was just too damn scared of getting hurt, all the while not knowing he's just as badly hurting himself by not doing anything.
This of course also applies to ladies as well (see the "Step It Up Ladies" blog). You can go for the guy in the same way (rent "Some Kind of Wonderful").
As always there's loads more I could say on this issue that fills whole books and movie plots, but I'm hoping for some good comments on this to keep things moving.