This immortalised quote, taken from rom-com classic When Harry Met Sally, is one of Hollywood love stories favourite mantras. Behind every male-female heterosexual relationship, whether they be colleagues or university peers or even childhood sweethearts, lies an inescapable sexual chemistry that thwarts all possibility of friendship. Take the aforementioned Harry and Sally, who meet numerous times over a number of years and form a close friendship before realising they are of course made for each other. Another notorious example would be the ironically titled Friends, where by the end of the show's 10 year run two thirds of its main cast were happily paired up in relationships with each other.
Many would argue a solid friendship is a good base for a serious relationship. They would in some cases be right. But in reality this trope rather irritatingly undermines the idea that a straight man/woman would form a connection with a straight woman/man for any reason other than to get sex. (I realise this is a very heteronormative standpoint but I'm just working with examples that I know). It's the same reason why the term 'friend zone' has begun to be called out for its negative implications - that it isn't enough to just be a woman's friend. If a man has a relationship with a woman that is non-sexual, it's either a waste of time or her being a bitch because the man isn't getting the payoff he feels he is owed. Hey, I listened to you talk about your day, I was a shoulder to cry on when you were upset, so why won't you have sex with me?
In my own rather less Hollywood experience, this just isn't the case. I have had many close male friends whom I trust and love deeply, yet I would never consider our connection more than platonic. In fact, it can be even more special to form a really strong bond with someone knowing they will never ask you for more than conversation or the pleasure of your company. They spend time with you because they want to, not because they feel it is a task they must complete in order to gain their sexual reward. If we know this to be true, why does popular culture keep insisting it isn't?
The stereotype has been updated in recent years with films like Friends With Benefits, which questions whether a man and woman can have casual, no strings attached sex without developing romantic feelings for one another. Well, of course they can't. But why not? At its heart the film industry, at least in the States, has always held itself to rather conservative moral standards. Sex is something that can only be enjoyed in a relationship - people (especially women) who do otherwise, like Amy Schumer in Trainwreck, only do so because deep down they are desperately unhappy with themselves and need the right man to come along and 'fix' them. It boils down to the simple old-fashioned idea that women are primarily there for sex, and women primarily have sex in order to have a family. Therefore, (heterosexually speaking at least) men seek out women for sex and sex alone, whilst women seek out men because they wish to build a life for a family. There's no room for friendship or casual sex or sex for pleasure, because in the parallel film universe this just doesn't happen.
Essentially what we see represented on screen hasn't yet caught up to how our society actually functions. But fortunately we are waking up from the 'happily ever after' nightmare. Apps like Tinder actively advertise the opportunity to have countless casual hook-ups, and have become an accepted part of the modern dating world. Onscreen a relationship is always the end goal, whereas in reality we are starting to learn that there is much to enjoy from the journey towards this result. Some of us aren't even intending to end up there anyway. So to refute the claim made in the title once and for all, men and women CAN be friends, because sex and friendship are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. And if we stopped considering long-term sex to be the ultimate prize, then perhaps we could enjoy all our relationships much more.
Many would argue a solid friendship is a good base for a serious relationship. They would in some cases be right. But in reality this trope rather irritatingly undermines the idea that a straight man/woman would form a connection with a straight woman/man for any reason other than to get sex. (I realise this is a very heteronormative standpoint but I'm just working with examples that I know). It's the same reason why the term 'friend zone' has begun to be called out for its negative implications - that it isn't enough to just be a woman's friend. If a man has a relationship with a woman that is non-sexual, it's either a waste of time or her being a bitch because the man isn't getting the payoff he feels he is owed. Hey, I listened to you talk about your day, I was a shoulder to cry on when you were upset, so why won't you have sex with me?
In my own rather less Hollywood experience, this just isn't the case. I have had many close male friends whom I trust and love deeply, yet I would never consider our connection more than platonic. In fact, it can be even more special to form a really strong bond with someone knowing they will never ask you for more than conversation or the pleasure of your company. They spend time with you because they want to, not because they feel it is a task they must complete in order to gain their sexual reward. If we know this to be true, why does popular culture keep insisting it isn't?
The stereotype has been updated in recent years with films like Friends With Benefits, which questions whether a man and woman can have casual, no strings attached sex without developing romantic feelings for one another. Well, of course they can't. But why not? At its heart the film industry, at least in the States, has always held itself to rather conservative moral standards. Sex is something that can only be enjoyed in a relationship - people (especially women) who do otherwise, like Amy Schumer in Trainwreck, only do so because deep down they are desperately unhappy with themselves and need the right man to come along and 'fix' them. It boils down to the simple old-fashioned idea that women are primarily there for sex, and women primarily have sex in order to have a family. Therefore, (heterosexually speaking at least) men seek out women for sex and sex alone, whilst women seek out men because they wish to build a life for a family. There's no room for friendship or casual sex or sex for pleasure, because in the parallel film universe this just doesn't happen.
Essentially what we see represented on screen hasn't yet caught up to how our society actually functions. But fortunately we are waking up from the 'happily ever after' nightmare. Apps like Tinder actively advertise the opportunity to have countless casual hook-ups, and have become an accepted part of the modern dating world. Onscreen a relationship is always the end goal, whereas in reality we are starting to learn that there is much to enjoy from the journey towards this result. Some of us aren't even intending to end up there anyway. So to refute the claim made in the title once and for all, men and women CAN be friends, because sex and friendship are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. And if we stopped considering long-term sex to be the ultimate prize, then perhaps we could enjoy all our relationships much more.
Comments
Post a Comment