Ramsey and I have known each other since kindergarten. While we were not always the best of friends in high school we began to grow closer especially since we both joined Atlanta CV Drum and Bugle Corps summer of senior year. One particular day we were having lunch after practice when Ramsey excused herself to use the bathroom and the waitress asked a peculiar question. “So, are you guys on a date?”

Caught slightly of guard I responded “Oh, Um… No. We’re just friends.”

“Oh… Well, do you like her?” She spoke again as she refilled my glass of Coke.

I was slightly irritated by the invasion of my personal space but I found the conversation rather interesting so I continued. “Uh, no.” I answered.

“Well then she likes you. Cause when you get to be my age (I’m assuming somewhere in her late twenties) you learn there is no such thing as ‘just friends.’ I pondered her response. Was it true? This waitress hadn’t known us for more than 30 or so minutes, but who’s to say she didn’t pick up on any signals that I had been blind to all these years? Just before I could gather my thoughts and inquire further the waitress had refilled our drinks, grabbed our empty plates, and was on to the next table. Shortly after Ramsey had returned from the bathroom and we continued our meals.

Many at this point would have it that I mention my conversation with the waitress to Ramsey. They would expect her to blush and shy away from the topic, but eventually perhaps later that day or a few days later profess her love to me. Or perhaps I thought about it and realized I was in fact madly in love with Ramsey and perform a grand gesture and ask her to prom, but I didn’t. We continued eating and I never spoke of the instance to Ramsey. She went to prom with someone else and so did I. But why Daniel, she probably really liked you?

I find it quite concerning that the idea of platonic relationships no longer exist. The “Friend-zone” is a common phrase now, defined by urban dictionary as “the seventh level of hell” in which a platonic relationship where one friend wants to be in a romantic relationship however is deemed by the other merely a friend and not a potential sexual partner. Being in the friend-zone is depicted in movies, television, and other outlets of media as a devastating dilemma in which the friend must in some way tackle escaping the friend-zone. Since early in my childhood the friend conquering the friend-zone plot has been used extensively; Ross and Rachael in Friends, Ron and Hermione in Harry Potter, Jim and Pam on The Office. In today’s world the concept of just being platonic friends is constantly challenged. Movies such as When Harry Met Sally or Just Friends champion the overcoming of the platonic relationship for it was a romantic one waiting to blossom all along. No TV series can resist leaving a heterosexual friendship as just that, a friendship; it is always complicated with extraneous feelings of eros and affection. Is the platonic relationship dead? Or perhaps was it always just a cover, the tip of the iceberg of a more intimate relationship?

Early-Modern writers such as Michel de Montaigne would beg to differ. In fact in his Selected Essays, Montaigne says “To compare this (friendship) with the affection for women, though it is born of our own choice, cannot be done nor can it be put in the same category.” He even goes as far as to say affection for women is “more active, more burning, harsher. But it is a rash and flickering fire” while friendship is “general, universal warmth, tempered, moreover, and even.” Being that as I stated earlier in Montaigne’s time females were treated with less than respectable opinion this views of friendship are not surprising. In fact given Montaigne’s opinion of love and women –he goes as far as to say “their (women’s) souls do not seem firm enough to maintain the grip of so tight and enduring a bond– it is almost not realistic to use him as a credible resource. However someone from a time more friendly to women C.S. Lewis felt relatively the same. In his book The Four Loves he states, “in some ways nothing is less like a Friendship than a love-affair” and “This love, free from instinct, free from all duties but those which love has freely assumed… is eminently spiritual. It is the sort of love one can imagine between angels.” Yet he also felt friendship cannot occur between a man and a women stating “Where the sexes, having no real shared activities, can meet only in Affection and Eros– cannot be Friends.” However Lewis still lived in a time where women and men while equals were considered in separate social circles. Now however can it be reasoned that a man and a women can experience this love so spiritual without any carnal passions?

Even in Lewis’ time some of the deterrents of platonic relationships ran rampant. He warns of them in The Four Loves. For instance in the beginning of the chapter titled “Friendship” he expresses his concerns with the diminishing importance of Friendship and its fading in people’s minds as being considered love. He also warns of women who regard friendship with “hatred, envy and fear as the enemy of Eros.” A war has been waging between friendship and those who regard it as Eros’ enemy. They would like you to believe men and women in fact think differently. Everyone knows the famous John Gray quote “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus.” Men will always confuse your acts of kindness for flirtation, or women are too emotionally unstable.

So why should we believe in platonic relationships? Why should we in fact embrace the friend-zone? To answer that question we must first define platonic relationships. The Oxford English Dictionary defines platonic in its origin as of, relating to, reminiscent of, or characteristic of Plato or (a particular aspect of) his philosophy. This seems fit being that Plato writes in his Symposium that “love is desire for the perpetual possession of the good.” He felt that what one seeks in love was not possession of beauty or “the other half” but in fact the continual possession of that which is good. Being so it would be clear that Plato would agree that relationships in which good– whether it be wisdom, knowledge, or happiness– is involved is considered love whether a sexual aspect is involved or not.

Now to explain platonic in the context of our usage it is defined as being of love, affection, or friendship: intimate and affectionate but not sexual; spiritual rather than physical. Using this definition I would describe any non-sexual intimate relationship as platonic. Any mother-son relationship, any brother-sister relationship is platonic. Although this is technically correct that is not what I attended to do. For if you ask a friend of the opposite sex, one who has no sexual feelings for you, to describe their feelings for you they might describe it by saying “like a brother.” However, if it is put to the test in a way similar to that once brought forth in class and someone is asked who would you would chose in a life and death situation? Some might say their brother, others might choose you. Meaning their relationship with you means more or less than that of the one they have with their brother, the feelings aren’t exactly the same.

So we must conditionally define platonic as any non-sexual intimate relationship in order to answer the questions I have posed. So if a platonic relationship is one that as Lewis would put involving “love least biological,” a love not required for survival of the species, is it possible for this love to exist?

Let us begin to explain by first asking if the complete absence of sexual attraction is possible between a man and a woman. If you ask a scientist he or she might deny the existence of a platonic or as they call them “opposite-sex relationship” because evolutionarily speaking there in fact may be no such thing as the complete omission of sexual desire. There is in fact research, however controversial, that suggest large gender differences in how men and women experience opposite-sex friendships. The research suggest that men are more attracted to their female friends and are more likely to think that their friends are attracted to them (Bleske-Rechek 2012). Speaking in “Platonic” terms (in this case being related to the teachings of Plato) men befriend women for a different “good” than the one women are in search of, while woman will befriend a man in search of companionship and camaraderie men are more likely to befriend women in search of a romantic relationship. The research study concluded that men and women have the potential to look at their relationships in vastly different perspectives; they felt that men are seemly more unlikely to be able to turn off their desires and attractions usually causing issues in the relationship.

So is it just that only women can experience a platonic relationship? Are all men evolutionarily incapable of keeping it in their pants? Interestingly enough I came across this research in another class from this semester in which we discuss social neuroscience. We even as young students of science could see the flaws and biases in the survey. In particular the flaws in the sampling method and the questions asked of the subjects. They also didn’t take into account the relationship between the friends – whether they we’re best friends or acquaintances. Neither did they check for certain personality traits or other factors involved in making relationship decisions. Therefore we decided we could do a better job. Because our research isn’t complete I decided to do a little research of my own. Upon asking several others their views of platonic relationships I began to form an overall bigger picture of the perceptions and realities behind the “opposite-sex relationship”.

How is a platonic relationship formed? Upon my interviews people came to the consensus that opposite sex relationships usual arise among people who go to school or work together that have the similar interest like any other friendship would. Typically girls tend to like a male friend because they have “less drama.” Some girls felt that other girls are too emotional and they want friends they can hang out with without worrying about each other’s problems. They see guy friends as someone simple to hang out and have fun with. A guy on the other hand will go to girls for support. They can easily ask them for relationship advice or help in other situations. For guys girls are easier to talk to and are usually smarter and more willing to help. This seems to match what research says. The research suggest “opposite-sex friendship is a strategy men use to gain sex, women use to gain protection, and both sexes use to acquire potential romantic partners” (Bleske-Rechek, 2000). These relationships are the most difficult because society usually expects some time of sexual or romantic connection between these friends. Society would have you to believe there are ulterior motives behind these friendships when most of us agree that they can exist without extraneous feelings.

What if feelings do arise in a purely platonic relationship? Most people do admit to having feelings arise in a platonic relationship. Many believe that their friendships were purely platonic in the beginning, but external factors tend to get in the way of their relationship. Others admit to going into the relationship in hopes of a romantic endeavor, but simply suppress those feelings because they find the friendship to be more beneficial than having a relationship that could ruin it. Interestingly guys tend to fall in the second category more than women. Women tended to fall in the first. People seem to believe that the reason why is that men seek out more sexual relationships compared to women. Whether that be due to evolution or social standard is unclear. What is clear is that in most cases the men will approach a female and upon seeing the female’s lack of interest in a romantic relationship be satisfied with a purely platonic one. Girls however tend to grow feelings for a male friend that they initial only liked as friend initially. This can cause many issues for the relationship. Research suggest that a good opposite-sex friendship requires an agreed amount of sexual and romantic undertones and each feel understood by the other (Monsour 543). A platonic relationship like any other relationship relies on mutual understanding and agreement without these it was never a friendship in the first place.

So how has the distinction between lovers and friends changed? Great philosophers and authors such as Cicero, Plato, and Montaigne had a clear distinction between love and friendship. The idea of a platonic relationship was foreign. However they did not think so highly of women as to allow them on the same plane as males therefore the distinction was rather simple at the time. This is understandable considering the role of women in their centuries, but the roles of women have changed. The woman of today is intelligent, well read, strong-willed, idealistic, and outspoken. The women of today choose their sexual partners and are a lot choosier than the women of Montaigne’s time. The woman of today requires mental companionship, equality, and respect not just a huge dowry. The notion of friendship rooted in a romantic relationship is quite recent history. The term boyfriend and girlfriend didn’t begin to appear until the 1906 (OED).

So if the platonic relationship is so widely accepted in today’s society why is it so attacked by pop culture? The answer is simple. Friendship in its realest form is boring. Friendship has no beginning, middle, and end. They are not filled with the intense sexual tension Hollywood would have you to believe. If the platonic relationship was shown on TV you would find it is quite the same and as boring as the same sex friendship. I would say that it is true the platonic relationship is dead, simply because the platonic friendship of today is simply a friendship. The term need not be used. The distinction of our relationships is finally no longer necessary. We are in a wonderful time of change in our lives. The people of today have realized that we are all equal. We all are the same on the inside. Aristole describes a true friendship as “one soul in two bodies.” The word platonic need not be used for we all have the same soul.

Annotated Bibliography

In this paper I define the phrase platonic relationship. A platonic relationship is a friendship between a two people of opposite gender. I chose this word because in my life I have had many platonic relationships and have found it quite concerning the way they are viewed in today’s society.

Bleske-Rechek, April, et al. “Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship.” JSPR (2012): 567-596

This research paper is my initial information source and made me curious as to what factors are involved in the initiation and continuation of an “opposite sex relationship.” This research paper is based off of an academic survey done at the University of Wisconsin-Eau. The findings highlighted men’s greater physical-sexual attraction to their cross-sex friends relative to women’s, as well as men’s tendency to overestimate their friends’ attraction to them. Bleske-Rechek goes on to conclude that man and women experience opposite-sex relationships differently. However biased the survey may be it does ask a great question. What is the attraction of cross-sex friendships, for both parties involved.

Bleske-Rechek, April, and David Buss. “Opposite-Sex Friendship: Sex Differences and Similarites, in Initiation, Selection, and Dissolution.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (200): 1310-1323

This is another research paper I found after doing research for our class. This research is done by the same researcher as before, but done at a different university. The findings highlight the differences between men and women when acquiring opposite-sex friends. They ask why men and women seek opposite-sex friendships and whether there is a difference between genders. Bleske-Rechek concludes that opposite-sex friendship is a strategy men use to gain sex, women use to gain protection, and both sexes use to acquire potential romantic partners. The survey is a great resource as it ask a question I need answered for the paper: Why do these friendships exist?

“Boyfriend, n.” “OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2013

I read in Werking’s book that boyfriend and girlfriend were rather new terms in the English language. The OED gives me the exact time and date in which it was first found in literature. This helps support my view that the platonic relationship is a rather new concept.

Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. 2nd ed. New York: Mariner, 1971. Print. 

I quote C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves quite often in my paper due to his teachings on the difference between Eros and Friendship. He like I warns of Eros’ jealousy towards Friendship. This is a great lead in to how media and people assumptions of hidden feelings has caused us to lose our belief in the platonic relationship.

Montaigne, Michel De. Essays. London: Penguin, 1993. Print.

I also quote Montaigne in order to show how our view towards women and platonic relationships has evolved over time.

Plato.  Plato: Symposium. Trans. Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989. Print. 

Because the word platonic’s etymology comes from the great Greek philosopher Plato I found it necessary to use his teachings on love as a resource. They were very helpful in understanding the origins of the word platonic and how we should use it today.

“Platonic, adj. and n.” OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2013

As per requirement I define the word platonic using the OED. The definition helps lead in to Plato’s view on friendship and leads to my conditional definition of the platonic relationship.

Werking, K. We’re Just Good Friends: Men and Women in Nonromantic Relationships. New York: The Guliford Press, 1997.

This is a book the previous research papers cited so I felt it necessary to review it for this paper. It is a very interesting read. It goes over many of the questions addressed in my paper. Werking discusses why he feels opposite-sex relationships exist and how they are perceived. He also backs his ideas with a few surveys he conducted. His surveys are the oldest research I could find on opposite-sex relationships and thought his ideas would be a great link between Lewis’ time and present day literature on the matter.