Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Hi, I wanted to share this reading here:
Can women and men be friends? - 55.1 > 62
This made me wonder, is the question, 'Can women and men be friends?' Or is it, 'Can I (you) be friends with men or women (depending on which side of the fence you're on)'? One is more general, one is more personal to you - and if I were asking this, this latter one would seem more informative for me.Can women and men be friends? - 55.1 > 62
How interesting, it's like there's more of a time limit or the friendship is more for a particular purpose.
With male friends there's always that slight tension, a slight need to be more boundarys as it can slip into more. There's also the phenomenon of the 'fcuk buddy' which I don't even believe truly exists. If you have sex with a friend they kind of stop being the same kind of friend.
This made me wonder, is the question, 'Can women and men be friends?' Or is it, 'Can I (you) be friends with men or women (depending on which side of the fence you're on)'? One is more general, one is more personal to you - and I were asking this, this latter one would seem more informative for me.
I also was thinking, where would gay or bisexual, or transgender people fit into this binary (0 /1, male/female, yin/yang) equation?
Well, if you got a spot-on answer, than that is good. And I also think that adding in the 'theoreticallly attracted to' aspect would get tricky.Can a person you could theoretically be sexually attracted to, be a friend" but that's also tricky .... These thoughts aside, the answer felt quite spot-on.
Don't know how to apply that to this, though.You can’t rejoice thus forever, and outside the world keeps moving, but few are so important that the spirits can’t go for ten days without them.
Well it is in a way, it just seems to me that he and Hilary have different emphases.Liselle, I don't see that Bradford's interpretation is not about time limits.
Hilary: "Such an alliance is not meant to be a lifelong partnership; it is important not to...overstep its bounds."
I see: Hilary: not life-long; Bradford: ten days. In both cases, though, a limited amount of time. Thinking of it, it rings kind of true. Maybe there are more outside and inside forces that can jeopardize them: one or the other party might suddenly want "more"; partners might get jealous, etc. Also, I've never really heard of life-long cross-gender friendships. Some people I've known stayed in touch with their exes (no kids involved), but I guess that's a different thing.Hilary: "Such an alliance is not meant to be a lifelong partnership; it is important not to...overstep its bounds."
Bradford: the previous quote, "You can’t rejoice thus forever, and outside the world keeps moving, but few are so important that the spirits can’t go for ten days without them." Hilary seems to emphasize the limit, not letting it go on too long. Bradford seems to emphasize allowing it the time it needs.
I like that!I think the line can often indicate a transformative relationship. You must recall meeting people who changed your thinking or influenced you
One of my closest friends is an ex - and a few of my closest friends are gay (I'm a straight guy, they are women) - so my conclusion is, you can not make any conclusions or speak in absolutes about this aspect of human relationships..... Also, I've never really heard of life-long cross-gender friendships ....
(I don't know what she meant by "that's also tricky," though.)Good question. I would think it boils down to: "Can a person you could theoretically be sexually attracted to, be a friend" but that's also tricky.
you have to navigate carefully (more carefully than in a same-sex/same-orientation friendship) - keep your eyes on the road and stay small.
You may forget me but don't forget Tibbles.
(Teasing, of course - I understand what you mean.)
And I never said that either. What I said was that if you do, .... for me it starts to sound suspiciously like prejudice or pre-judging ....Freedda, I haven't heard anyone on this thread say anything remotely like that.
When I see that GreenBird wrote:Well "sharing a concern" when it's not based on anything that's actually happened can seem like an accusation. Do you see how that could be? Pre-judging in its own way, to me at least.
And it seems that another way you could interpret the Yi's response to this question is:
"I can't really give you an answer that would apply to all people and all situations - so in lieu of that, when you approach this particular situation ... navigate carefully - keep your eyes on the road and stay small. Otherwise, you run the risk of pre-judging people and situations before you know much about them."
I think what you wrote was fine. And I never felt misled or offended by what you said..... I didn't mean to offend anyone ... I'm new here (which is not an excuse) and English is not my native language .... Sorry, if what I wrote was misleading.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).