Rules of Opposite Sex Friendship

[Tailor2000]

Why are these so difficult?

 

We're told time and time again, we're all the same, we're all equal. There should be no barriers.

 

This is something I subscribe to. Whether you're a man, a woman, married single, we can and should be able to gain friendships with all. We each have unique gifts, unique skills, each with something to give and something to receive.

 

I even have some married people telling me "we're just people, we're not married women, we're just people. But then those same people tell you that you shouldn't text a married woman more than once a week.

 

Who put these rules in place?

 

You treat your opposite sex friends like your same sex friends, except there are things you can't do with your opposite sex friends like text them more than once a week - even if the text is purely innocent.

 

I got one person telling me there's nothing wrong with giving a gift as it's just a nice gesture, another telling me that there is a problem with giving a gift.

 

So if I know an opposite sex friend who needs a lift, do I offer them a lift or not? If I think a gift might cheer them up, disregarding their sex and thinking of them purely as a friend, do I get them that gift?

 

No wonder Im screwed up. All these inconsistent boundaries.

 

It's even worse for me as a Christian where the majority of people are married women. You're told to do things for other people. Great! No one wants me to do anything.

 

Is there some kind of hand book?

 

It's a good job Im not bisexual otherwise I wouldn't be able to liaise with men or women!

 

I've offered lifts to men, I've sent them texts, I've even sent them TWO in a week (when I've got something to talk about). What's the difference with a woman?

[Try]

Who put these rules in place?

What you call rules are marital boundaries. Most couples have worked out healthy boundaries that they both agree on. Many couples have boundaries that do not allow for any opposite sex friends ("OSF"), where some are OK with OSF but they still have boundaries in place such as no date like situations or having exs as OSF. Boundaries are normal and healthy, but what those boundaries are vary from couple to couple. Dating is getting to know someone of the opposite sex that has the right characteristics that you could potentially develop romantic feelings for them. Studies show that most dates do not involve sex and many do not even involve kissing. Although you cannot control how you feel, you can control your actions by having these boundaries in place. Your confusion comes in that each couple has their own set of boundaries that works for them. Edited March 18, 2016 by Try

[Tailor2000]

What you call rules are marital boundaries. Most couples have worked out healthy boundaries that they both agree on. Many couples have boundaries that do not allow for any opposite sex friends ("OSF"), where some are OK with OSF but they still have boundaries in place such as no date like situations or having exs as OSF. Boundaries are normal and healthy, but what those boundaries are vary from couple to couple. Dating is getting to know someone of the opposite sex that has the right characteristics that you could potentially develop romantic feelings for them. Studies show that most dates do not involve sex and many do not even involve kissing. Although you cannot control how you feel, you can control your actions by having these boundaries in place. Your confusion comes in that each couple has their own set of boundaries that works for them.

 

Some people on forums accuse me of having incorrect boundaries. But I say my boundaries are stricter than some married women who have suggested we get a drink, or even met me for a coffee, or had me in their house by themselves. Of their own invitation.

 

I've felt uncomfortable myself.

 

I find they have have less a problem with this big stuff, and more of a problem with the simple stuff of just talking to someone as a friend and doing something nice like offering a lift.

 

What Im saying is that in this, I don't seek private time or date like scenarios. And to be honest, I'd rather get to know both them and their partner.

[central]

There are only two boundaries we have that apply to OSF (that would not usually apply to SSF unless you're inclined to relationships of the same sex):

- do not become emotionally/romantically involved

- do not get sexual

 

 

Even those are subject to negotiation if done ahead of time, since we have an open relationship and would consider a poly relationship with the right person(s).

[Tailor2000]

There are only two boundaries we have that apply to OSF (that would not usually apply to SSF unless you're inclined to relationships of the same sex):

- do not become emotionally/romantically involved

- do not get sexual

 

 

Even those are subject to negotiation if done ahead of time, since we have an open relationship and would consider a poly relationship with the right person(s).

 

I like those rules. Those rules make sense.

 

But.

 

Define sexual and define emotional.

 

I wouldn't say friendly hugging or a peck on the cheek to be romantic or sexual. Hand holding on the other hand, unless it's to comfort, isn't sexual or romantic. But it could be emotional? But what's wrong with a bit of emotion between friends? You can care an OSF without it getting sloppy?

[central]

I like those rules. Those rules make sense.

 

But.

 

Define sexual and define emotional.

 

I wouldn't say friendly hugging or a peck on the cheek to be romantic or sexual. Hand holding on the other hand, unless it's to comfort, isn't sexual or romantic. But it could be emotional? But what's wrong with a bit of emotion between friends? You can care an OSF without it getting sloppy?

 

I mostly mean romantically when I say emotionally, or where you give precedence to the friend over the spouse, share intimate thoughts with the friend but not the spouse, or engage in criticizing or bashing the spouse which can lead to inappropriate attachment to the friend. I certainly like and care about my friends, and love them as a friend, but not to the point where I begin to fall in love with them - as that would be crossing the boundary, and I'd have to back off anything that weakened the boundary.

 

 

We can get bogged down in defining details, but I think for most people these concepts are pretty clear.

[Summer3]

I like those rules. Those rules make sense.

 

But.

 

Define sexual and define emotional.

 

I wouldn't say friendly hugging or a peck on the cheek to be romantic or sexual. Hand holding on the other hand, unless it's to comfort, isn't sexual or romantic. But it could be emotional? But what's wrong with a bit of emotion between friends? You can care an OSF without it getting sloppy?

 

 

When having opposite sex friends you need to be careful. Online, I will accept PM's from men but too many (like getting one everyday) would be inappropriate. Sometimes I post pictures because I like compliments but I don't leave them up for too long and men are usually very nice. They give one compliment then they stop. I feel good and the friendship isn't compromised.

 

In real life. Different story. I don't have any male friends. Period.

[salparadise]

Some people on forums accuse me of having incorrect boundaries. But I say my boundaries are stricter than some married women who have suggested we get a drink, or even met me for a coffee, or had me in their house by themselves.

 

What Im saying is that in this, I don't seek private time or date like scenarios. And to be honest, I'd rather get to know both them and their partner.

 

I wonder if you're good at reading cues? People who are sense where other's boundaries are and can therefore interact in a way that's fun and interesting without getting inside the other person's hoola hoop.

 

Most people have an intuitive sense with regard to opposite sex friendships. Women understand that male attention is often motivated by attraction and that if they don't shut it down the guy won't know when to quit... and because a lot of men will cross that line if attention is reciprocated. So their "just friends" boundary is set farther out than for female friends.

 

I also don't understand why you are so interested in pursuing close, platonic friendships with married women––what's up with that?

 

So yea, I wonder if you're not picking up on cues, and why this particular interest?

[Try]

I like those rules. Those rules make sense.

The rules that you just liked are by someone (central) that ended the post stating "we have an open relationship and would consider a poly relationship with the right person(s)". Since most couples are not looking to be in an open relationship, these rules may not work for them.

 

I wouldn't say friendly hugging or a peck on the cheek to be romantic or sexual. Hand holding on the other hand, unless it's to comfort, isn't sexual or romantic. But it could be emotional? But what's wrong with a bit of emotion between friends?

Look up the term emotional affair ("EA"), and you will see why many men would take issues with you emotionally connecting with their spouse. Hugging another man's wife, kissing them on the cheek, holding hands with them, as you try to emotionally connect with them, will not be looked at nicely by many husbands unless they are in an open relationship.

 

I have an idea. Why not put that time and energy into finding a spouse of your own, where such things would be viewed by everyone in a positive light?

Edited March 18, 2016 by Try

[Tailor2000]

When having opposite sex friends you need to be careful. Online, I will accept PM's from men but too many (like getting one everyday) would be inappropriate. Sometimes I post pictures because I like compliments but I don't leave them up for too long and men are usually very nice. They give one compliment then they stop. I feel good and the friendship isn't compromised.

 

In real life. Different story. I don't have any male friends. Period.

 

There's been a few times I've text someone after a group meeting becauee Im worried I may have been rude. Im not the most confident person in public, the written form is my best. So I have a tendency to babble on. But it's never more than anything like this.

 

In terms of contacting someone, does it matter about the content of the messages? I mean if they're mostly functional, like you're trying to arrange a lift or something, or you're just extending a hand of friendship when you know they might be unwell, is that OK? That's fine between friends isn't it?

 

 

 

I wonder if you're good at reading cues? People who are sense where other's boundaries are and can therefore interact in a way that's fun and interesting without getting inside the other person's hoola hoop.

 

Well this is. I don't think I am good at reading cues. Im pretty naive. What you see is what you get. I just want to be friends with everybody. No ulterior motive. I know some great people of both sexes. But I've read too many forums to know some people think that "something more sinister" is going on.

 

I may have Aspergers. I am anxious and don't approach people too easily and quite distant anyhow.

 

 

Most people have an intuitive sense with regard to opposite sex friendships. Women understand that male attention is often motivated by attraction and that if they don't shut it down the guy won't know when to quit... and because a lot of men will cross that line if attention is reciprocated. So their "just friends" boundary is set farther out than for female friends.

 

I also don't understand why you are so interested in pursuing close, platonic friendships with married women––what's up with that?

 

So yea, I wonder if you're not picking up on cues, and why this particular interest?

 

So apart from a perceived threat of attraction from the opposite gender, what's the problem with opposite gender friendships? I wouldn't describe my friendships with the opposite gender as particularly close. I don't know why you say that that's what Im pursuing. I wouldn't change them for the world. I love them like sisters and mothers and people in their own right. I don't care about gender. They're friends. I would do anything for them like I would anyone else. I don't see a problem with that.

 

Heck, I probably have more intimate conversations with people at work! And they aren't intimate at all. I do wonder what goes through peoples heads when I talk about me genuinely being upset that what was a good honest friendship isn't the same friendship it once was. Where someone rewrites the rules without saying. About how my boundaries due to not being comfortable socially are much more severe than a woman's boundaries, but they're quite often more relaxed in the bigger things (like hugging and kissing) but then run a mile when you try to be friendly.

 

Look up the term emotional affair ("EA"), and you will see why many men would take issues with you emotionally connecting with their spouse. Hugging another man's wife, kissing them on the cheek, holding hands with them, as you try to emotionally connect with them, will not be looked at nicely by many husbands unless they are in an open relationship.

 

Well it's a good job I don't initiate any kisses off any married women or insist we meet in private. Hence Im a little bit curious as to why you think it's me doing that to them. They don't seem to have much of a problem giving me a kiss on the cheek, or a hug, or even inviting me to meet in private.

 

To many people a kiss, or a hug is the same as a hand shake. It's a greeting and I see it as one of trust and respect. If you can hug someone of your own gender in a platonic non-sexual way, why not a woman? Hugs are brilliant!

 

But this is the problem, what was acceptable one day is not acceptable the next day. What one person thinks is perfectly fine, another one doesn't.

 

I like the simplicity of central's rules - non sexual, non romantic, not emotional in a romantic sense - you should be good.

 

No wonder Im not good at reading cues. You got to work out your interpretation, their interpretation, what the other person is feeling at the time, the whole plethora of interaction of where the boundary is, whether texting someone that extra time is too much, whether something will be seen as emotional, romantic, sexual. I refuse to believe that the best way forward is to simply sit and do nothing.

 

As I say, where does that leave Bisexual people? They can't go near men or women!

Edited March 18, 2016 by Tailor2000

[preraph]

I wonder if you're good at reading cues? People who are sense where other's boundaries are and can therefore interact in a way that's fun and interesting without getting inside the other person's hoola hoop.

 

Most people have an intuitive sense with regard to opposite sex friendships. Women understand that male attention is often motivated by attraction and that if they don't shut it down the guy won't know when to quit... and because a lot of men will cross that line if attention is reciprocated. So their "just friends" boundary is set farther out than for female friends.

 

I also don't understand why you are so interested in pursuing close, platonic friendships with married women––what's up with that?

 

So yea, I wonder if you're not picking up on cues, and why this particular interest?

 

I agree with you about the cues, and I think he's admitted he's not good at reading cues, but he is just wanting friends who will stay involved, but that's hard with married people and people of the opposite sex. They always have other priorities.

[salparadise]

Well this is. I don't think I am good at reading cues. Im pretty naive.

 

I may have Aspergers. I am anxious and don't approach people too easily and quite distant anyhow.

 

I wondered about Aspergers but decided to just say reading cues. I think what you perceive as people changing the rules may be people deciding that they're uncomfortable with too much familiarity and enforcing their boundaries a bit farther out than they had previously. Just a guess.

 

So apart from a perceived threat of attraction from the opposite gender, what's the problem with opposite gender friendships?

 

Nothing inherently wrong with them, but a little reading on this forum will show you that many people believe that truly platonic opposite sex friendships are rare. One thing I've notice about so called OSF is that people tend to select them using exactly the same criteria as romantic interests... attraction, flirtatiousness, etc. Most people need some basis for forming relationships with other people; common interests or hobbies, some type of synergy that benefits both. If these married women don't see a basis for the friendship, then by default they'll probably assume it's attraction.

 

But regardless, they probably just aren't interested in close friendship (as opposed to acquaintance) if you aren't bringing something valuable to the table that enhances their wellbeing... such as status. People tend to desire friendship with others of equal or higher status. They're often polite to lower status folks, sometime charitable, but for actual friends there is usually a quid pro quo exchange of some type. This works mostly in the subconscious, not overtly or deliberate.

 

 

 

I wouldn't describe my friendships with the opposite gender as particularly close. I don't know why you say that that's what Im pursuing.

 

An assumption based on a) texting more than once a week, and b) it's bothering you enough to want to slice and dice it here on the relationship forum. Most of my acquaintance friends are only in contact once in a blue moon when we have actual information to exchange or are trying to arrange a gathering. More than once a week will feel more like a pursuit.

 

 

I wouldn't change them for the world. I love them like sisters and mothers and people in their own right. I don't care about gender. They're friends. I would do anything for them like I would anyone else. I don't see a problem with that.

 

Perhaps they ARE aware of gender and aren't inclined to nurture OSFs for no other reason than you seem interested.

 

I do wonder what goes through peoples heads when I talk about me genuinely being upset that what was a good honest friendship isn't the same friendship it once was. Where someone rewrites the rules without saying. About how my boundaries due to not being comfortable socially are much more severe than a woman's boundaries, but they're quite often more relaxed in the bigger things (like hugging and kissing) but then run a mile when you try to be friendly.

 

Just wondering... have you noticed any correlation between the object/timing of these hugging and kissing episodes and a sudden rule change?

[ASG]

One of my very best friends is a guy. He is also married. We text often, go for drinks as often as humanly possible (usually about once a week, sometimes more) and he's one of the very few people I'll actually CALL.

There is absolutely NOTHING untoward in our relationship. I've slept at his house when his wife wasn't there and we were absolutely wasted.

 

Sometimes his wife comes nad hangs out with us too! And she's absolutely 100% cool with our relationship, because she knows it is purely platonic.

 

In fact, most of my male friends are married or in long term relationships. I have never had a problem with their wives or gfs. They know they are more than welcome to join us in our outings.

 

I am a single girl, by the way.

[preraph]

The intensity of your interest is more than usually a casual friend has and while I know you don't mean anything more, I bet she sometimes at least interprets it as being more than the ordinary friendliness because of the intensity. . I know she is confusing you with reaching out and then drawing back. I think she's probably also confused because people would equate your level of intensity and tenaciousness with something more than a casual friendship. All I know is in all matters of contacting people, it's best to wait and see if they reciprocate. I know she's made promises she hasn't kept, but I still think just cooling your wheels and waiting to see if she contacts you at some point is the best. I realize you will run into her in the meantime, and that is what makes it awkward, isn't it? So just be polite and don't bring up one of the broken promise subjects unless she does. I'd tell that to anyone who wasn't hearing back as often as they'd like. Just wait and see what they'll do if you just wait for a response. And meanwhile, do try to stir up some other interests and hobbies so you have some fun and aren't just frustrated.

[Summer3]

There's been a few times I've text someone after a group meeting becauee Im worried I may have been rude. Im not the most confident person in public, the written form is my best. So I have a tendency to babble on. But it's never more than anything like this.

 

In terms of contacting someone, does it matter about the content of the messages? I mean if they're mostly functional, like you're trying to arrange a lift or something, or you're just extending a hand of friendship when you know they might be unwell, is that OK? That's fine between friends isn't it?

 

 

IMHO I think you should stay away from married women. They're married. In my experience any man who wanted to do anything for me or was concerned about my health also liked me more than a friend. So that is my assessment.

[Tailor2000]

IMHO I think you should stay away from married women. They're married. In my experience any man who wanted to do anything for me or was concerned about my health also liked me more than a friend. So that is my assessment.

 

Really? Are you as black and white as that? If you knew a man through a social circle, an he had a book you wanted to borrow, you wouldn't borrow it? Or say you were stranded and needed a lift, you wouldn't take it? Or say after a few years you knew each other, but he knew you were going into hospital, you would think he's up to no good if he wished you good luck, or asked how your operation was going?

 

Wow. That's.

 

How many ulterior motives are you reading into peoples behaviour there.

 

I prefer the central's approach. It may be naive, but it doesn't judge everyone by the same cover. You judge on actions.

 

 

 

But regardless, they probably just aren't interested in close friendship (as opposed to acquaintance) if you aren't bringing something valuable to the table that enhances their wellbeing... such as status. People tend to desire friendship with others of equal or higher status. They're often polite to lower status folks, sometime charitable, but for actual friends there is usually a quid pro quo exchange of some type. This works mostly in the subconscious, not overtly or deliberate.

 

If that's the case, surely no friendship would ever be reciprocated, because the lower would always be seeking the higher, while the higher would be ignoring the lower.

 

Im happy being acquaintances. What I dislike is when acquaintances call themselves friends, act like acquaintances, then from time to time, suddenly start acting like your best friend. I just want to tell them to get stuffed.

 

THAT'S if Im reading it right.

 

 

An assumption based on a) texting more than once a week, and b) it's bothering you enough to want to slice and dice it here on the relationship forum. Most of my acquaintance friends are only in contact once in a blue moon when we have actual information to exchange or are trying to arrange a gathering. More than once a week will feel more like a pursuit.

 

Uhuh.

 

Well, it was first of all a question as to who actually established that rule? And in a world of gender equality, if you would text your male friend 5 times a week, why can't you text your female friend 5 times a week, especially if it is just platonic, not romantic, not emotional. Who established that x number of texts indicates that more is required.

 

And as the problem appears to not be the number of texts but actually the fear of attraction from the opposite sex, then what does the person who's bisexual do. Not text anybody? Live a life of isolation and seek out other bisexuals?

 

It just seems such a cruel, cold-hearted, sterile world, which as a Christian, seems to be so far removed from the world Christ wanted when he said on the cross, woman, here's is your son. Man, here's is your mother.

 

Such beautiful words and beautiful language and the kind of thing I want to get across to these wonderful wonderful women who have been so kind and generous. I don't want to sleep with them, but I would do anything for them like they were family, like they were my mothers and sisters, exactly the same like I would do for my male friends. A world without distinction.

 

I slice and dice it, because by and large, it seems to be the female gender that I struggle with the most. I don't get them.

 

I keep my distance like I do with most people due to my shyness, they get friendly, they get supportive, they talk about me, ask about my weekend, my love life, my health etc, we get chatting. I think I've got a friend, I reciprocate, then they do a disappearing act and leave me to it.

 

I generally don't approach anybody, men or women. Men are so stupidly reserved (probably because of all these rules about connecting with other people that women don't have to observe themselves) that by and large, men don't approach me either to talk to me. Or to establish friendships.

 

I also slice and dice it because there are some people I can't avoid. Like the one Im talking to at the moment. She'll probably do a 180 again at some point and be all charismatic and charming like there's nothing wrong.

 

With my male friends, they generally don't do these disappearing acts and leave me in the lurch. They engage in communication. If you ask them what's going on, they'll get back to me. They don't ignore me and then call me insecure. They seem to have a bit of respect for me. They talk to me. They tell me what's happening. If they upset me, I can ignore them, because I don't have to spend any time with them.

 

 

Perhaps they ARE aware of gender and aren't inclined to nurture OSFs for no other reason than you seem interested.

 

Just wondering... have you noticed any correlation between the object/timing of these hugging and kissing episodes and a sudden rule change?

 

 

No correlation as far as I can see.

 

Well I received the kiss on the cheek last year, and the hug the year before that. I didn't take it as romantic or emotional, just a nice friendly gesture. I'll share a bit more in a PM if that's OK. It all seemed to change when she went on holiday and came back more distant, more reserved.

[Summer3]

Really? Are you as black and white as that? If you knew a man through a social circle, an he had a book you wanted to borrow, you wouldn't borrow it? Or say you were stranded and needed a lift, you wouldn't take it? Or say after a few years you knew each other, but he knew you were going into hospital, you would think he's up to no good if he wished you good luck, or asked how your operation was going?

 

Wow. That's.

 

How many ulterior motives are you reading into peoples behaviour there.

 

I prefer the central's approach. It may be naive, but it doesn't judge everyone by the same cover. You judge on actions.

 

 

Someone wishing me good luck on an operation is fine. But here is the thing...you made a thread about talking to married women. I think you're better off becoming friends with the married women's husbands.

 

Central is coming from a different place. He's into swinging, open marriage and poly stuff; he has different values. For him sex is an open book. My guess the women you are "helping" have monogamous marriages and have husbands who would be horrified that you're making this thread.

[Tailor2000]

you made a thread about talking to married women. I think you're better off becoming friends with the married women's husbands.

 

So do I. How do I meet them? Through the wives. When the wives would rather we meet on our own rather than with husband? Er... But that's no reason I shouldn't talk to the wife. Unless she's trying to come on to me!

 

You've already said being wished well for an operation is fine. So talking isn't the problem.

 

So what type of talking crosses a boundary for you?

[Summer3]

So do I. How do I meet them? Through the wives. When the wives would rather we meet on our own rather than with husband? Er... But that's no reason I shouldn't talk to the wife. Unless she's trying to come on to me!

 

You've already said being wished well for an operation is fine. So talking isn't the problem.

 

So what type of talking crosses a boundary for you?

 

Too much talking. Too many questions. Anytime a man has lots of interest in getting to know me in depth it's because they were attracted to me. Men and women really can't be good friends. They can be acquaintances but as soon as they feel like they really understand each other problems begin. The emotional connection breeds bad stuff.

 

Here is a link you should watch:

 

[JustGettingBy]

Open question: I have a close OSF who's gay. Would my friendship with her be more tolerated because of this than it would if she was straight?

[Tailor2000]

Too much talking. Too many questions. Anytime a man has lots of interest in getting to know me in depth it's because they were attracted to me. Men and women really can't be good friends. They can be acquaintances but as soon as they feel like they really understand each other problems begin. The emotional connection breeds bad stuff.

 

Here is a link you should watch:

 

 

Very subjective. Please explain what you mean by 'too many questions'? Who sets this limit?

 

The problem as I say that these boundaries fluctuate between person and person and it seems to be the women setting the agenda. No wonder men are so lost socially.

 

One person says me getting a present for a woman as a thank you, is fine, it's innocent, its a kind gesture. Another one might say I'm trying to come onto them.

 

Another might be fine with a gift one day, then run a mile the next and change their interpretation on a whim.

 

Meanwhile the woman just does what she wants to do. If she wants to give me a kiss, give me a present, give me a hug or a touch on the arm, that's fine. But if I reciprocate, suddenly is unacceptable!

[Summer3]

Very subjective. Please explain what you mean by 'too many questions'? Who sets this limit?

 

The problem as I say that these boundaries fluctuate between person and person and it seems to be the women setting the agenda. No wonder men are so lost socially.

 

One person says me getting a present for a woman as a thank you, is fine, it's innocent, its a kind gesture. Another one might say I'm trying to come onto them.

 

Another might be fine with a gift one day, then run a mile the next and change their interpretation on a whim.

 

Meanwhile the woman just does what she wants to do. If she wants to give me a kiss, give me a present, give me a hug or a touch on the arm, that's fine. But if I reciprocate, suddenly is unacceptable!

 

I don't know what to tell you. I gave you the the Marriage Today video to watch. If you watched it you wouldn't be asking these questions.

[salparadise]

If that's the case, surely no friendship would ever be reciprocated, because the lower would always be seeking the higher, while the higher would be ignoring the lower.

 

That's if socialization were rigid, absolute entity. It's not. Generally speaking, when a lower status person desires a friendship with a higher status person there has to be a basis and the lower status person has to have something to offer. It also depends on the differential. People don't usually socialize with others that are more than one rung away on the ladder. You never see a wealthy socialite befriending someone who lives in a doublewide. That's just the way things are.

 

What I dislike is when acquaintances call themselves friends, act like acquaintances, then from time to time, suddenly start acting like your best friend. I just want to tell them to get stuffed. THAT'S if Im reading it right.

 

The word "friend" might be the least specific word in the English language. People don't actually articulate the difference between acquaintance and friend. You have to intuit it.

 

Well, it was first of all a question as to who actually established that rule? And in a world of gender equality, if you would text your male friend 5 times a week, why can't you text your female friend 5 times a week, especially if it is just platonic, not romantic, not emotional. Who established that x number of texts indicates that more is required.

 

The rules aren't written, they aren't absolute. They're nuanced and context dependent.

 

And as the problem appears to not be the number of texts but actually the fear of attraction from the opposite sex, then what does the person who's bisexual do. Not text anybody? Live a life of isolation and seek out other bisexuals?

 

Again, you're taking things literally and absolutely when they're not. The context is different with gay/bi and I'm sure the rules are as well.

 

It just seems such a cruel, cold-hearted, sterile world, which as a Christian, seems to be so far removed from the world Christ wanted when he said on the cross, woman, here's is your son. Man, here's is your mother.

 

The expectation that being Christian will dissolve societal hierarchy is going to leave you disappointed and perplexed... more than you are already.

 

Such beautiful words and beautiful language and the kind of thing I want to get across to these wonderful wonderful women who have been so kind and generous. I don't want to sleep with them, but I would do anything for them like they were family, like they were my mothers and sisters, exactly the same like I would do for my male friends. A world without distinction.

 

Yea, I hear ya. That's just not the way things actually work.

 

I slice and dice it, because by and large, it seems to be the female gender that I struggle with the most. I don't get them.

 

I also slice and dice it because there are some people I can't avoid. Like the one Im talking to at the moment. She'll probably do a 180 again at some point and be all charismatic and charming like there's nothing wrong.

 

You're trying to use cognitive processing to compensate for what most people get intuitively, but that you don't perceive. You're trying to reduce social interaction into simple rules that you can memorize and use to achieve more social integration. If you are actually Asperger's and deficit in these skills then I suppose this is the best way to compensate.

 

But we can't fix any of it for you or reduce it to simple rules. All I can say is that human social interaction is extremely complex and nuanced. The communication surrounding all of it is probably 98 percent non-verbal. It's not processed cognitively at all... it just registers as a feeling of congruity or incongruity with a particular person.

 

My guess is that the ladies at church understand your social difficulties and are trying to be generous with their time and attention because they're good people and want to help you, and even befriend you. But... they can't sustain it all of the time and need to just back away and recharge much like an introvert needs to step outside. Doesn't mean they don't like being there- they just need a break.

[Tailor2000]

Thanks salparadise. One of the things I decided to do many years back was to take people at face value. If someone says one thing, accept what they're saying as true.

 

If someone says "lets get coffee", I take it that they want to get a coffee. Otherwise how do you know when someone wants to get a coffee or if they don't? What if they really do want a coffee but need to validated in their requested? If a male friend says lets get a coffee, you can bet that they really want a coffee. Very true. Very genuine. When a woman says lets get a coffee though, it generally doesn't come to fruition. But true, I don't know when it's a genuine offer of coffee and friendship and when it's not.

 

You seem to have a very understanding and patient way of writing which I find reassuring and helpful. This person at Church is kind of like that. Very reassuring and helpful. I like that. They're a good person to be around.

 

Im also very honest in my intentions. So I got half the world telling me to take things at Face Value. Half telling me to look at the sub-context. Then I got everyone else not taking what Im doing at Face Value and instead looking for ulterior motives. Annoying. No one plays by the same rules.

 

Anyhow I lost track.

 

You seem to have a way of talking which makes me think you have an awareness of Aspergers. I haven't been officially diagnosed. I've got an unofficial diagnosis through an Aspergers expert. When I got it, I was very much, no way, that can't be me. I can't remember doing this that and the other. They've taken everything out of context.

 

But then you write things like

 

You're trying to use cognitive processing to compensate for what most people get intuitively, but that you don't perceive. You're trying to reduce social interaction into simple rules that you can memorize and use to achieve more social integration. If you are actually Asperger's and deficit in these skills then I suppose this is the best way to compensate.

 

But we can't fix any of it for you or reduce it to simple rules. All I can say is that human social interaction is extremely complex and nuanced. The communication surrounding all of it is probably 98 percent non-verbal. It's not processed cognitively at all... it just registers as a feeling of congruity or incongruity with a particular person.

 

My guess is that the ladies at church understand your social difficulties and are trying to be generous with their time and attention because they're good people and want to help you, and even befriend you. But... they can't sustain it all of the time and need to just back away and recharge much like an introvert needs to step outside. Doesn't mean they don't like being there- they just need a break.

 

I do perceive it. I see it. I don't get it though. I perceive people behaving differently. I don't see why they're behaving differently. I see people ignoring me and I get very hurt. I don't see what I've done wrong.

 

I think it's one of the reasons I want to get to know about other people. If I know what works for someone, I can do that. If I know someone just needs some space because Im too intense, fine, no problem! Tell me where the boundaries are, and I'll accept them. Just don't expect me to guess. Tell me! Trying to be nice is the worst thing for me. Be direct.

 

As a single man, I feel like I have to do the work of the man and the woman. The women talk and introduce their families with each other. I don't have a significant other to do that for me. So I can't hang around with my wife as she goes up to another couple and does an introduction! Oh how I wish for that. It's one of the reasons I've thrown convention out of the window and decided stuff it, Im innocent. Im not doing anything wrong. I'll accept friendship however it presents itself. I'll try and push. I've got no one to my introductions for me. I've got to do it. If I want to socialise, find a girlfriend, I've got to put myself out there. I've got to get to know people and talk to people. I've been seething at a guy who kept me waiting for a year to go and get a drink. The difference is, I could easily ignore him. But the women have a tendency to come up to me and I can't ignore them.

 

I've never been a typical man though. I don't really enjoy pubs. I'd rather go and get coffee. I prefer quieter environments. But I don't really have the friends who enjoy that. As a particularly sensitive guy, I've always felt more comfortable around women, I probably consider that I actually have a strong feminine side, but that doesn't mean I want to chat about hand bags, and boyfriends and stuff. I'd be happy with a mixed group of people.

[preraph]

How people behave often has nothing to do with you. You have to realize each person is mostly focused on themselves, not you.

 

But if you are wanting rules of engagement, I would repeat that you can't go wrong starting with, Once you've contacted someone, don't recontact them until they have responded to you. It's a place to start.

 

The other tip might be to just adjust your thinking from "I don't understand why she's not doing this; it must be me" to "It is what it is. She hasn't contacted me about this, for reasons only she knows that may have nothing to do with me."