Emotional Intimacy (with non-partner friends)

[Matty]

F
Pressing F for all the friendzoned men mentioned in the op.

That said, my best friend was an elderly woman I randomly spoke to outside. She and I shared a love for classical music, and sculptures.

 

[Asa]

Pressing F for all the friendzoned men mentioned in the op.

1. No. People do have platonic friendships.
2. Friend-zoning can go both ways. Women get friend-zoned, too.

That said, my best friend was an elderly woman I randomly spoke to outside. She and I shared a love for classical music, and sculptures.

Is this you?

 

[Matty]

1. No. People do have platonic friendships.
2. Friend-zoning can go both ways. Women get friend-zoned, too.



Is this you?

View attachment 86808

Straight men do not seek platonic relationships with women. If they seem to, it's because they're too nervous to flirt, they have low self esteem or depression, have some weird Oedipus complex going on which wants you to mother them, or are probably not actually straight.

 

[Linda Loo]

One of my best friends is a straight male. He said he is at a point in his life where he is looking for friendships where he can be his real self and not have to be work buddy, drinking buddy, gamer friend, etc.

Just real friendships that exist outside of whatever the acceptable mold or activity is. He wants to be his whole self and not hide his true thoughts and feelings.

 

[acd]

It's so foreign to me to want to be so open and intimate with many people or to expect it out of all of my friendships. Usually I just want a break from my emo self to goof around and theorize about stuff. And I do talk about important things with friends but it's not the majority of time spent. I think it would take a lot of emotional energy or investment on my part to maintain such emotional intensity and I just personally don't have that available for a lot of people. And that's as an NF. I prefer to keep most of my emotional life private or internal. But maybe that's an infp thing?

 

[Ren]

It's so foreign to me to want to be so open and intimate with many people or to expect it out of all of my friendships. Usually I just want a break from my emo self to goof around and theorize about stuff. And I do talk about important things with friends but it's not the majority of time spent. I think it would take a lot of emotional energy or investment on my part to maintain such emotional intensity and I just personally don't have that available for a lot of people. And that's as an NF. I prefer to keep most of my emotional life private or internal. But maybe that's an infp thing?

It's a little bit more of an INFP thing, but I'm pretty sure most INFJs would relate as well. Maybe most people would?

I mean, it's simply very difficult to have a large number of deep emotional relationships.

 

[David54]

Deep emotional relationships are not about sex, they are about soul. Connection, real connection, the kind of, I've known you for a thousand lifetimes connections.
Perhaps I'm delusional, but I have friends here that I feel that way about.

 

[acd]

Deep emotional relationships are not about sex, they are about soul. Connection, real connection, the kind of, I've known you for a thousand lifetimes connections.
Perhaps I'm delusional, but I have friends here that I feel that way about.

I consider you a dear friend that I have met here. And we do have deep spiritual talks as well as chat about ordinary stuff.

I guess the disconnect I'm having with this thread is that, for example, we are able to be friends and there's no spouse drama about it. No one is upset.

I just think if one notices a pattern where SOs are jealous of the friendships it is highly likely due to a boundary being crossed or trust being breached. Usually then a spouse is neglecting the marriage for the friendship. That's not platonic.

 

[Asa]

Perhaps I'm delusional, but I have friends here that I feel that way about.

The forum is full of these exchanges. We share quite a bit here. I think that is why we all get so wound up over drama. The waves hit us all.

@acd I think REAL friends are both fun and deep/serious. I also agree we can't have many friendships so close and deep. With these friends (a handful of people who have been in our lives for decades), my SO and I don't worry about boundaries.

 

[slant]

I consider you a dear friend that I have met here. And we do have deep spiritual talks as well as chat about ordinary stuff.

I guess the disconnect I'm having with this thread is that, for example, we are able to be friends and there's no spouse drama about it. No one is upset.

I just think if one notices a pattern where SOs are jealous of the friendships it is highly likely due to a boundary being crossed or trust being breached. Usually then a spouse is neglecting the marriage for the friendship. That's not platonic.

Can I also point out that it could also be a situation where one spouse has an insecure attachment style because of trauma and maybe their reaction to a situation is magnified? Like meaning that maybe what triggers insecurity in them is at a much lower thereshold and so they might perceive a threat that isn't there.

 

[acd]

Can I also point out that it could also be a situation where one spouse has an insecure attachment style because of trauma and maybe their reaction to a situation is magnified? Like meaning that maybe what triggers insecurity in them is at a much lower thereshold and so they might perceive a threat that isn't there.

I don't disagree that's a possibility. I just don't think it's fair to make that determination as a friend of the spouse and not give space for them to deal with that. There's probably a line between being possessive (insecure) and protective of the relationship. People should be able to have friendships outside of a marriage and even spend time with just their friends. There's always a balance.

I just think needing these intensely deep emotional connections with men who happen to be married is beyond that. Find a boyfriend.

 

[slant]

I don't disagree that's a possibility. I just don't think it's fair to make that determination as a friend of the spouse and not give space for them to deal with that. There's probably a line between being possessive (insecure) and protective of the relationship. People should be able to have friendships outside of a marriage and even spend time with just their friends. There's always a balance.

I just think needing these intensely deep emotional connections with men who happen to be married is beyond that.

I definitely agree with that- the issue should be resolved within the marriage and whatever is decided should be respected by outside parties.

 

[Wildfire]

Can I also point out that it could also be a situation where one spouse has an insecure attachment style because of trauma and maybe their reaction to a situation is magnified? Like meaning that maybe what triggers insecurity in them is at a much lower thereshold and so they might perceive a threat that isn't there.

This is absolutely true.

I had a relationship that caused problems for my marriage. It was similar to the kind mentioned in the OP and my husband wasn’t initially honest about the problems this relationship brought up for him. We figured it out, but only after a whole lot of honesty and a great deal of love and acceptance for our flawed and broken bits.

 

[Wildfire]

In this case, the ENFP/ISFP marriage sounds like it is potentially a poor match. Unless they're facing an issue like addiction or toxic behavior, any time a person tries to restrict their spouse from being who they are, the marriage weakens. If she doesn't want her husband to form close friendships with women, she needs to step up her game and be more open, accepting, and trustworthy with him so he feels safe being vulnerable with her. He will still need friendships, but he won't need that deeply intimate connection as much and/or they will have such a deep bond that she won't feel insecure about him having other friendships.

I don't disagree at all with what you've said here. They are all very good suggestions but it does feel very one sided in the sense that it solely focuses on what she needs to do. What does he need to do? And at what point has he, the ENFP, asked her, the ISFP, to be someone she is not?

I'm just floating an idea that's not meant to be confrontational, and I realize this may be starting to stray too far from the original topic.

 

[JustPhil]

Straight men do not seek platonic relationships with women. If they seem to, it's because they're too nervous to flirt, they have low self esteem or depression, have some weird Oedipus complex going on which wants you to mother them, or are probably not actually straight.

I feel there are more women than men that have a greater emotional depth. To be understood and accepted is important, to find your tribe, and that is what we all want. And that can happen without being insecure, gay or wanting a mother figure in your life. I certainly feel more secure emotionally with a woman, that I can be more emotionally expressive without being shot down, but it does happen.

From my point of view from a young age, men are taught to suppress emotions, not express them. Maybe it is different now, I certainly hope it is. Me taking the path of talking to women over men is probably based on negative experiences in the past with talking to men about emotional topics.

And no, I do not have hidden desires to get into a relationship with my women friends. In fact a few who have wanted to go down that path, I have had to be firm with, reset boundaries. That said, in all cases, I did lose them as a friend.

There is always the potential for a problem where you get to a situation where one person develops deeper feelings for the other.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

For me this more than anything feels and often is for many out there in the world to be a lost cause as for the common demographics to be distant if even cold so such connections are not easy to come by.

 

[Asa]

I don't disagree at all with what you've said here. They are all very good suggestions but it does feel very one sided in the sense that it solely focuses on what she needs to do. What does he need to do? And at what point has he, the ENFP, asked her, the ISFP, to be someone she is not?

I'm just floating an idea that's not meant to be confrontational, and I realize this may be starting to stray too far from the original topic.

I thought about this, especially considering relationship problems are often about both people goofing up. I singled her out only because I don't know what behaviors he is bringing to the relationship that may trigger her insecurities, aside from having friends, and because (chronic) jealousy is a toxic emotion people need to work on to overcome. It's could be about not trusting her partner or being in a relationship that is a poor match for her. (Or maybe she gets off on relationship drama. Who knows. Well, worthy may know.)

I just mentioned this whole thing to my SO and he said, "By definition, all friendships are platonic no matter what the friend's gender is."
Touché.

 

[Matty]

I feel there are more women than men that have a greater emotional depth. To be understood and accepted is important, to find your tribe, and that is what we all want. And that can happen without being insecure, gay or wanting a mother figure in your life. I certainly feel more secure emotionally with a woman, that I can be more emotionally expressive without being shot down, but it does happen.

From my point of view from a young age, men are taught to suppress emotions, not express them. Maybe it is different now, I certainly hope it is. Me taking the path of talking to women over men is probably based on negative experiences in the past with talking to men about emotional topics.

And no, I do not have hidden desires to get into a relationship with my women friends. In fact a few who have wanted to go down that path, I have had to be firm with, reset boundaries. That said, in all cases, I did lose them as a friend.

There is always the potential for a problem where you get to a situation where one person develops deeper feelings for the other.

Ugh the myth of emotional depth.

Discussion of emotions may be in terms of psychology, anthropology, neurology, etc. Emotional relationships are just a weird kind of aesthetics, or hedonism which when all the flowery mumbo jumbo is taken away can be summarised: it feels good. A feel-good relationship, based on nothing else but that it feels good, cannot be platonic because sex also feels good.

Any relationship based on feeling good which excludes sex can only be explained by some mental pathology regarding sex, or because one or both parties are in an exclusive relationship. In the later case, emotional friendships with non spouses (including de factors) is essentially infidelity in all aspects, except for sexual penetration.

Of course there are non emotional friendships with members of the opposite sex, but these are usually termed collaborations, colleagues, etc.

 

[April]

Ugh the myth of emotional depth.

Discussion of emotions may be in terms of psychology, anthropology, neurology, etc. Emotional relationships are just a weird kind of aesthetics, or hedonism which when all the flowery mumbo jumbo is taken away can be summarised: it feels good. A feel-good relationship, based on nothing else but that it feels good, cannot be platonic because sex also feels good.

Any relationship based on feeling good which excludes sex can only be explained by some mental pathology regarding sex, or because one or both parties are in an exclusive relationship. In the later case, emotional friendships with non spouses (including de factors) is essentially infidelity in all aspects, except for sexual penetration.

Of course there are non emotional friendships with members of the opposite sex, but these are usually termed collaborations, colleagues, etc.

You trigger me, lol. I mean no disrespect this time. I just personally feel that's it's not that simple.

However...

Ahem. *gets ready to make huge announcement*

I can understand why you see it that way.

 

[worthy]

I've been following along and unable to make time for a proper response but will soon. I am SO grateful to all of you for your helpful (and might I say deep) insights. It's catalyzing important growth in me. I don't mind the tangents -- keep it coming if you have things to say.

And @April your announcement was spot on. That thought definitely crossed my mind as well!

So grateful. I'm looking forward to responding in depth. Thanks.