> For each, assume that both you both have no social/practical/ethical/moral constraints keeping you apart (other relationships, for example). Further assume that somehow this person is the best reasonable prospect for a mate available to you. Would you pursue a romantic relationship with her?
That's a phenomenally contrived hypothetical that circumscribes the applicability of your argument to the narrowest possible domain. Yes, if one of my female friends was the last woman on earth I would pursue her. What does that say about real relationships between real people where that contrived premise does not hold?
> For those you consider attractive I will assume that the answer to the question is "yes", you would pursue her. I think we are getting into the definition of attraction here and I can't think of another way to look at it.
Under your hypothetical yes, but that doesn't prove much. All it proves is the definition of "attractive" which is someone you would have sex with.
> The sexual attraction and potential for romance, even if very theoretical, will often or nearly always be there and will color the relationship, perhaps even in a very subtle way.
By your reasoning, no bisexual could have people whom he is "just friends" with, using your definition of "just friends." To look it it another way, there are always emotional undercurrents coloring friendships, regardless of the gender of the friend. Why single out physical attraction? Is it the case that you can never really be friends with a guy you work with, because there is always the underlying competitive tension? Is it the case that you can never really be friends with someone whose politics or lifestyle you strongly disapprove of?
Friendships exist at the equilibrium between competing forces. Forces like physical attraction can make friendships difficult, but so can forces like jealousy or competitiveness. People form real friendships despite those forces because the countervailing forces are stronger.
I agree the example was unnecessarily long-winded, distracting, and almost tautological. Sorry about that.
I think we might agree but are talking past each other. You say "Why single out physical attraction?" No reason except attraction in friendships is exactly what we are discussing.
Where I believe we are getting hung up though is that you believe that inherent in the assertion that men and women (assuming hetero again) cannot "just" be friends implies that they cannot be "real" friends. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that attraction implies malicious intent. Nobody is saying that because there is attraction that a friend relationship is based completely on false pretenses or merely serve an ulterior motive. Furthermore, I believe you are a "real" friend to all of your friends - I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Your concluding paragraph is wonderful and I agree. "Friendships exist at the equilibrium between competing forces" is a great way to put it. My point is that, in almost all cases, one of those forces pulling a man to a woman in any kind of relationship is sexual attraction. I believe vice-versa is often true, but the man to woman attraction almost invariably will be a factor in the relationship.
Again, the friendship can be real and contain good intentions and real cooperation. It does not suggest an ongoing campaign of seduction. The poorly stated thought experiment was merely to ask if you acknowledge the force of sexual attraction as an important one in the equilibrium you describe.
Can you honestly say for any of the friend relationships you have with women that attraction is a negligible component of the equilibrium? Are there any from which you are not deriving at least a little bit of ongoing benefit from the good feelings of being liked by or associated with an attractive woman?
All that I am saying is that I believe the attraction is almost always there and has a big role in who we choose to befriend and keep as friends. Even if it is completely innocuous in most cases we should acknowledge it.
Hopefully I have clarified sufficiently. Do you still believe you disagree? I am very interested in your answers to my previous questions. Thanks for reading.
That's a phenomenally contrived hypothetical that circumscribes the applicability of your argument to the narrowest possible domain. Yes, if one of my female friends was the last woman on earth I would pursue her. What does that say about real relationships between real people where that contrived premise does not hold?
> For those you consider attractive I will assume that the answer to the question is "yes", you would pursue her. I think we are getting into the definition of attraction here and I can't think of another way to look at it.
Under your hypothetical yes, but that doesn't prove much. All it proves is the definition of "attractive" which is someone you would have sex with.
> The sexual attraction and potential for romance, even if very theoretical, will often or nearly always be there and will color the relationship, perhaps even in a very subtle way.
By your reasoning, no bisexual could have people whom he is "just friends" with, using your definition of "just friends." To look it it another way, there are always emotional undercurrents coloring friendships, regardless of the gender of the friend. Why single out physical attraction? Is it the case that you can never really be friends with a guy you work with, because there is always the underlying competitive tension? Is it the case that you can never really be friends with someone whose politics or lifestyle you strongly disapprove of?
Friendships exist at the equilibrium between competing forces. Forces like physical attraction can make friendships difficult, but so can forces like jealousy or competitiveness. People form real friendships despite those forces because the countervailing forces are stronger.