Dear Robot: Can a girl ever be “just a friend” to a guy?
Human ‘Boadicea‘ writes in with a question:
Dear Robot,
Check out #3 on this list about guys putting girls in the friend group. Just thought I’d send it along and see what you think; it reminded me of the whole girls have 2 ladders thing, but it’s coming from a guy:
3. You’re a friend. Girls, beware: sometimes we can’t tell when you’re interested in us. When I was in college, my best girlfriend told all my roommates that she liked me, and made them swear not to tell me. They actually kept the secret pretty well for a while. But when I finally found out, I was completely blind-sided—and I only thought of her as a friend from day one. . . . [View original]
So I wondered if you agreed or if you maintain the Ladder Theory position that believes guys only have the one ladder.Signed,
Boadicea
Dear Boadicea,
I agree, but with an important qualification.
Guys can have a “friends” ladder of sorts, but their friends ladder will always be in a vertical relation to their sex ladder. In other words, a guy’s “friends” ladder will always just be the lowest few rungs of his sex ladder. So these girls who are actually platonic friends to this guy are really just ranked 0-4 or so on his sex ladder.
Important note: What I just said means that the women whom your average guy is friends with are not actually his friends. This does not mean that almost all of a guy’s female friends are 0-4 on his sex ladder. Rather, it means this: to a guy, almost all females exist as sexual possibilities. It would take a very low sexual score (0-4) in order to dispel the lurking sense of sexual possibility in a man’s interaction with a woman. And, as the Ladder Theory so eloquently puts it, it seems obvious that a lingering desire to bend your “friend” over the table naked sort of precludes “friendship” in any really platonic sense.
Now, consider the reality that he’s probably right (or at least agrees with the majority) to rate these actually platonic female friends as he does. Because of that, these girls are probably fairly low in sexual purchasing power (because to most guys, they’re 0-4). To put it bluntly: he is probably worth more to them than they are to him. So of course they’re attracted to him and want something more of him while he doesn’t, and—here’s the clincher—of course they don’t want him to know, because they know that he knows it’s a stretch. Otherwise they’d be more sexually confident in their flirtation.
Only girls, then, can have two ladders that are horizontally arranged. À la femme, the friends ladder is not different from the sex ladder only in “vertical” terms of sexual degree. Rather, the woman’s friends ladder is completely devoid of sex. It is different in kind rather than in degree: rather than consisting of “less” sexual men (as a man’s friends ladder would of women), it consists of men that that woman does not consider sexually at all.
But all that this really amounts to, at least practically speaking, is just that a woman can consider extremely attractive men as only friends. Why? Because the behavior and attitude of these men are such that they are thought of as non-sexual. Think feminine, beautiful men that a woman would never think of sleeping with.
And why not? Because they’re unintimidating. To the woman, they’re not participating in the power struggle that every sexual man participates in, in every animal society whatsoever: the struggle to demonstrate one’s alpha status—that is, one’s superior genes.
Of course, these men actually are participating in this struggle (every animal is). But they’re really bad at it. So bad, in fact, that to the woman, they don’t even seem to be trying (think Steve Carell). These other, unintimidating men aren’t even trying to sell their genes. And if they’re not trying to sell genes, then the woman considers them as support for her buying genes elsewhere from those who are selling it. Preferably, she’ll buy these genes from the alpha male; but she’ll settle at one time or another for the most-alpha genes she can get.
So for a woman, a man can be a friend—in fact, “friend” is an apt word, because she will think of this male friend in the same way that she’ll think of her female friends—that is, as a trustworthy, helpful, good-intentioned support and release system. Not, however, as a licensed purveyor of sperm.
Now a guy, on the other hand, would never be able to be consider a beautiful woman as a nonsexual being. It’s simple to see why—her sexual ranking would place her above the bottom few rungs of his sexual ladder. And since those few rungs are the only thing he’s got close to a “friends ladder,” she could never be a friend in the same sense that another man could.
I hope this answers your question.
Yours truly,
The Robot
Remember that you can write in with your own questions to The Robot on any aspect of human culture. Just send in an email to: robot@therobot.org.
The Mystical said,
July 24, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Theoretically, your assumption is sound. However, you must take into account the effect that simply making such a sweeping generalization will have. To put it simply, people do not like being put into catagories–to have their behaviors broken down into a simple series of “if-then” statements, even though, to some extent human thought and behavior patterns are indeed rooted in such simplistic patterns.
Humans for the most part prefer their world to be orderly and predictable; they create rules, draw boundaries in the vain hope that they might comprehend something that is essentially unknowable. But nothing in this world is truly knowable. There are always exceptions to every rule–even to this very statement. Simply by saying that there are always exceptions will lead someone to find something with no exceptions.
Bear in mind that this is not a criticism of your overall argument, merely the way in which you state your position. You state your position as a certainty, leaving no room for the uncertainty which is free will.
When told that there is a certain pattern that their behavior will follow, any person who holds pride in themselves will attempt to turn away from that pattern. Of course, merely making that observation could lead them to embrace the stereotype simply to be contrary.
This desire to be contrary, this…stubborness, if you will, is essential to making humans what they are. It is part of what has helped humanity survive the centuries, and as such is an essential part of their nature–that much is a fact. The uncertainty in that statement lies in whether or not a given individual will choose to be contrary.
This world is made up of both zeroes and ones, yeses and nos, rules and exceptions–just keep that in mind. Stating an assumption with such certainty could lead people to be willfully contrary–to purposefully choose the opposite path.
Unless of course, that was your intent to begin with.
But I digress.
Just keep in mind that not everyone follows that pattern of behavior you described above. Some have been aware of such behavior for quite some time and have willingly turned away from it. Because humans always have a choice, you can’t classify human behavior so easily.
jiminy kricket said,
July 24, 2008 @ 11:44 am
I personally feel my sexual dynamic is so warped that to try to fit it into the ladder theory would require so much stretching and pushing and pulling as to be begging the question.
And I’m not even that weird a guy.
circumfesion said,
September 6, 2008 @ 11:32 am
I’d agree. but with a few qualifiers:
There’s a lot more mobility between the two ladders than one might suspect. The friend that a woman views with strictly platonic interest can, fairly readily, be seen within a sexual context–as long as he can reinvent his image. IF he pulls this off, chances are, he’ll land on the same rung of the “sexual” ladder, if not even higher up.
That, of course, is easier said than done. And it’s easier still for the same movement to be made in reverse. The crux, I think, is precisely what you pinpointed: a certain kind of intimidation. The difference between a handsome, brilliant guy that we’d be content to engage with purely over coffee, as opposed to more physically demanding activities, is the former is perceived of as being purely aesthetic–someone to be admired from a collectedly objective distance (Mr. sweetness and light would approve)–whereas the latter is too emotion-ingly threatening to be considered in such a calm fashion.
***
To mince niceties here:
“Of course, these men actually are participating in this struggle (every animal is). But they’re really bad at it. So bad, in fact, that to the woman, they don’t even seem to be trying (think Steve Carell). These other, unintimidating men aren’t even trying to sell their genes. And if they’re not trying to sell genes, then the woman considers them as support for her buying genes elsewhere from those who are selling it.”
I’d actually disagree. For the most part, we’re a bit more preceptive to even bumbling efforts that we are being given credit for in this comment. It isn’t because they’re not trying, that these men are sexually dismissed…it’s that they are too obviously trying. Like smooth writing (which i perhaps shouldn’t discuss, since I certainly do not excel at it) a good play doesn’t reveal its scaffolding until the very end. Once we feel as though we’ve attained certainty as to what the other things of us…the music stops, and for this round, at least, you’re stuck in the seat that you’ve managed to grab (or stuck sitting out on the sidelines).
We had discussed, though in passing and regarding a different issue, the value of delayed enjoyment. This is where I’d like to advocate its usefulness. Ambiguity isn’t just necessary for literary theory (don’t shake your head at me), but also absolutely necessary for sexualizing early impressions. Regardless of how attractive or brilliant he might be, I instantly dismiss the unfortunate male who hands out an obvious compliment. Why? If he’s so taken with me immediately, I reason (correctly or not), there’s (a) no need for me to try to attract him and (b) he’s unlikely to probe further into who I am, and I’d like to think that there’s more to me than what meets the eye. There’s a lot to be said for social foreplay.