My better half, Abie, is certain he, canвЂ™t maintain a close friendship with a member of the opposite sexвЂ”a woman who is not me that you, or at least.
As their argument goes there’s always tension when youвЂ™re with some body with that you could have sex, and that tension erodes the ability for genuine connectivity. What he means as he says connectivity, i believe, is intimacy. And because he is so regimentedвЂ”so loyal to his discipline, his personal compass of restraintвЂ”he keeps a distance if I may be so bold as to put words in his mouth or ideas in his head, I wonder if.
His language of intimacy depends a lot on touch (i am aware this because he literally thanks me everytime I run my fingers through their locks, or rub his shoulders, or take their hand), so when you can easily experience such deep connection based simply in the act of creating physical contact (whether in a platonic setting or otherwise not) with another individual, and youвЂ™re hellbent on Doing WhatвЂ™s Right (which, bless him, he is), it develops a wall surface this is certainly difficult to reduce.
IвЂ™m unsure how I feel. I have merely a fistful of genuineвЂ”as in, closeвЂ”friendships with heterosexual guys. I understand a complete lot of those through work. The ones we donвЂ™t work with are typically the husbands of my friends that are female and this classification of вЂњfriendshipвЂќ is situated purely from the proven fact that we now have text threads for which neither of your partners exists.
If AbieвЂ™s language of closeness is touch, mine is big talkвЂ”the opposite of small talk, e.g. dealing with the core of intellectual angst, philosophical force, psychological cleverness. No body is more valuable as compared to other. Nevertheless the plain benefit of big talk this is certainly different from physical touch is the fact that it is a whole lot more theoretical. With touch, you need to feel it to, you know, feel it.