Difficulty with platonic friendships

CharleyJ

New member
Hello. First, a little disclaimer: I am not posting this here to suggest that polyamists have moderate sex addiction (although I think I might have). I am posting it here because I am in an open relationship and consequently believe I'll get more insightful and open-minded advice here than in typical sex and/or gay advice forums.

I'm twenty-nine-year-old gay male and I'm in a happy open relationship with my boyfriend of almost six years. I have a high sex drive and I'm quite promiscuous, usually hook-up with at least couple of boys a week. Sometimes one-offs, sometimes semi-romantic weekend-long flings, and some develop into regulars or friendships. Always honest with my boyfriend about the boys with whom I have sex; always honest with the boys with whom I have sex about my boyfriend; always use condoms for anal. I am largely happy with these things - but have two problems.

1. Often, people who've developed into friendships decide we've become too close and say they do not want to have sex any more. Part of me blames the destructiveness of monogamous norms for making them feel this way about sex and friendship, and wants to persuade them that sex is an important and divine part of ours. Another part feels I should just respect this is this is their wish without such discussion, but I have extreme emotional difficulty with the change in dynamic. I value the friendship, but I also don't want to spend half the time I'm with them with my internal monologue asking why they won't do me. Does anyone here have any similar experiences and/or advice on developing platonic friendships with those for whom you have sexual and/or romantic feelings and/or experiences?

2. Not dissimilarly, if I'm say at a party and can't find anyone to have sex with me I'm prone to going home at best or having a midkey tantrum at worst. Not all the time, but enough of the time some people have commented on it and I think I may have a problem. I'm very keen not to be another sex-entitled man, so any experiences and advice on overcoming this would be helpful.

Once again, apologies as I realise this isn't a sex dependency forum, but I've looked at Sex Addiction UK and they're very '12 Steps, Higher Power, even ethical promiscuity isn't okay', so thought I'd try my luck here.
 
First, I suggest you read David J. Ley's book, The Myth of Sex Addiction https://www.amazon.com/dp/1442213051. Compulsive sexual behavior can be a problem but the concept of sex addiction may get in the way of figuring out what is going on for you personally.

You do seem to have some internal insecurities or feeling like you lack something going on. It kind of reads like you don't think you are worth much unless you are having sex with someone you find attractive. Like sex is all you have to offer them - not friendship, listening, mutual hobbies, checking out cute boys together, whatever. And if someone doesn't want to continue having sex with you, that does not mean you are not worthy, worthless - or vice versa, that they are worth less. The tantrums if you are denied sex are a related thing. Does this pattern pop up in your relationship with your boyfriend?

Look into this dynamic with a therapist. A good one can really help you get to the bottom of what's going on psychologically for you. I personally find it impossible to change a thought or behavior pattern if I don't consciously understand why I'm doing that thing or having those type of thoughts. (It's still not easy but at least I have a shot once I know what's going on behind the curtain, so to speak.)

This doesn't make you a bad person or doing something wrong! It just means you are like a lot of other folks who struggle with some aspect of self-worth. It sounds like you are handling your open relationship just fine. Everyone knows the deal and is consenting. Good luck in sorting this out. I think you will find yourself to be much happier in the long run.
 
1. Often, people who've developed into friendships decide we've become too close and say they do not want to have sex any more. Part of me blames the destructiveness of monogamous norms for making them feel this way about sex and friendship, and wants to persuade them that sex is an important and divine part of ours. Another part feels I should just respect this is this is their wish without such discussion, but I have extreme emotional difficulty with the change in dynamic. I value the friendship, but I also don't want to spend half the time I'm with them with my internal monologue asking why they won't do me. Does anyone here have any similar experiences and/or advice on developing platonic friendships with those for whom you have sexual and/or romantic feelings and/or experiences?
I don't have the experience, because I never have sex before relationship, but I must say, you seem to be making assumptions about their motivations. I am not sure feeling this way is about adhering to monogamous norms - for me sex+friendship=extremely strong bonding, so if I don't want to bond that strongly? I will have to give one part up.
While it is probably true that you shouldn't try tu persuade them, you can certainly have a conversation. You can tell them that you feel rejected or whatever is on your mind - at least they get a chance to reassure you. You can also ask if their willing about the why, try to listen and understand.

One question: you said you're open. Are you actually up for polyamory? Perhaps having two really close romantic partners? Is your boyfried? Do you have energy to sustain it, do you invite it?
Because, if your answer is "no", I think it's pretty clear, why people would choose either sex or friendship.

Pay attention to your thoughts and feelings. If you spend a lot of time asking why they won't have sex with you? Find an answer which feels good and respecting to yourself and them.
 
Hi CharleyJ,

I don't know what's the reason why people who've developed into friendships pull away from you sexually. Maybe it is monogamous conditioning; there certainly is enough of that going around. And I suppose you could ask them to have a polyamorous relationship with you, but the way I picture it, they probably won't go for it. At some point you just have to accept their sexual autonomy, and if their reasoning is somehow skewed, that's their own thing to worry about.

I get the sense that sex is very important to you, which is okay. That's very human. You just don't want to get so carried away that you end up having a tantrum, or otherwise messing up your life. Possibly a sex therapist could help you in this area. It's not necessarily about having some kind of addiction, it's more about having sufficient self-esteem to cope with misfortune. To believe that you're desirable, even if some people turn you down.

Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
Oh, I suspect that gay male culture plays a part here. In most gay communities, it's generally accepted (and expected) that gay men in committed relationships will play around with others as long as those sexual liaisons remain casual and absolutely no relationships develop. Most partnered gay men who post here seeking help with wanting to practice polyamory report having much difficulty telling their partners that they want more than anonymous sex and completely no strings only flings. Their partners, and their gay friends, just can't wrap their minds around the idea. So, I'd bet that when you and one of these fellows start developing a friendship, they feel that it means you are now off-limits sexually.

I guess that the only way to address that is to be very upfront about what you want, and ask them what their underlying reasons are. I would think that a very productive conversation could come out of it.
 
It's too bad the OP, CharleyJ, never returned to respond to any of the very interesting replies to his opening post.

It's also too bad NYCindie's very insightful comment was left dangling and without a response.

I discovered this old, disused thread when clicking on a "tag" with the word friendship in it. I wanted to see what folks had to say about platonic friendship and its importance.

Here's what NYCindie said:

Oh, I suspect that gay male culture plays a part here. In most gay communities, it's generally accepted (and expected) that gay men in committed relationships will play around with others as long as those sexual liaisons remain casual and absolutely no relationships develop. Most partnered gay men who post here seeking help with wanting to practice polyamory report having much difficulty telling their partners that they want more than anonymous sex and completely no strings only flings. Their partners, and their gay friends, just can't wrap their minds around the idea. So, I'd bet that when you and one of these fellows start developing a friendship, they feel that it means you are now off-limits sexually.

I guess that the only way to address that is to be very upfront about what you want, and ask them what their underlying reasons are. I would think that a very productive conversation could come out of it.

As a bi, poly guy, I'm so weary of the prevalent gay-cultural norm, in which we're not supposed to care for / about our more "casual" partners, or to have anything ongoing with them, or form a friendship which includes sex, etc. And the overwhelming majority of gay en are surprisingly emotionally monogamous! What's with that? I don't get it. It's often both okay and expected that gay and bi men, when partnered, will have all kinds of sex with people who are basically strangers, but no feelings are allowed, dammit!

What I'm basically wondering here is What is at the root of this? Why cannot friendship and sex co-exist? Even the Friends With Benefits dynamic rarely involves an actual friendship. And there are dozens of apps and "dating" websites which are full of folks seeking either anonymous or almost anonymous one-time encounters, which suggests that millions of people are radically severing human connection and sexual sharing. It often looks like an iron wall dividing us in half. What's wrong with having a beer or a cup of tea (with conversation, of course!), hanging out, getting to know one another... and coming back for more?

I do think it's basically a cultural phenomenon, not an innate human trait.
 
What I'm basically wondering here is What is at the root of this? Why cannot friendship and sex co-exist? Even the Friends With Benefits dynamic rarely involves an actual friendship.

This has always thrown me for a loop. I'm not heavily involved in the gay scene; my only semi-close gay acquaintance was 10-15 years older than me and, after performing most nights out of the week and working as a radio DJ in the days, normally spent his free time NOT forcing himself to be social lol. but the Friends with Benefits idea... Every relationship I've had developed out of a budding friendship. It's made having platonic female friends a bit difficult for me, and I usually don't get flustered over a stranger's physical beauty. It's only when I start to notice a person's... hm... compatible nature? Possibilities? --that I normally start to develop any real attraction.

I'm interested in some insight on this, too.
 
I'm interested in some insight on this, too.

Some (almost) random thoughts on the theme:

Social norms are necessary and useful. And yet they can also be unhelpfully constraining, narrow, too tight.

Keeping sex and friendship strongly apart (having a very firm line of division) appears to be a basic social norm in mainstream society (in most places).

This norm can have other "bleed in" effects, so to speak, so that those who are not in a "romantic" relationship, but who share a strong, loving bond, will generally be hesitant to engage in even non-sexual physical intimacy which lasts for longer than a quick hug or hand shake (e.g., holding hands, cuddling). But this differs wildly from one culture to another!

Mainstream culture's (in many places, it seems) default setting is to accept sexuality in the context of "romantic" relationships exclusively, or (in places) to make allowances also for purely "casual" sex -- or sex in which there is a strong boundary maintained against "feelings". Casual sex (so-called) is not about "feelings," but is about sensations. (Which is a very weird line to draw because anyone with the most rudimentary grasp of somatics / somatic psychology will know that sensation and feelings are always, inevitably intertwined -- almost to the point of being indistinguishable.)

Perhaps the main thrust, cause or source (root?) of this emphasis on a very strong boundary between sex and friendship is about pregnancy? I'm speaking historically, here, of course. Today's social norms and attitudes about sexuality emerged in a hetero-normative, hetero-conventional context, and at a time when birth control methods were quite limited. Sex was much more closely associated with child-bearing and child-rearing. And millennia of culturally mandatory monogamy resulted in a narrowing of family, eventually to the so-called nuclear family.

Friends are not family. According to the convention, anyway. The convention guards this boundary strongly, too.

There are all of these conventions based on strong, hard boundaries.

Along come these people who are all about disturbing (softening, opening) strong and hard boundaries, raising questions, seeking to break free from these hard and fast "rules" or norms.

Most things in actual reality (nature) are not divided from other things by hard, strong boundaries. Hard and strong boundaries are generally quite artificial. (Note how governments / the state / conventional mapping draws very sharp, distinct lines dividing one from another. Contrast this with "bioregional mapping," which often results in soft, diffuse boundaries between bioregions -- because that's what's really there in the "landscape".

Soft, diffuse boundaries freak some people out! They are fearful things, because they are "vague" and are regarded as impractical, even dangerous. But the real world has far more soft and diffuse boundaries -- permeable, open boundaries -- than tight, narrowly drawn ones. Life itself utterly depends upon such permeability.

I like bioregional maps (some of them, anyway) as examples of soft, diffuse, and yet very effective boundary drawing. These parameters are completely unlike the boundaries between governments on the landscape, in that they cannot be precisely located even though they can be clearly located in a diffuse way.

There is nothing at all distributed or permeable or open about the singular point which divides four of the US states at the Four Corners Monument -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners_Monument. When I visited this place, for fun I put my two hands in two states and my two feet in the remaining two, so that I was straddling four states -- and jurisdictions -- all at once.

You can call me Hermes.

"Hermes was the emissary and messenger of the gods.[1] Hermes was also "the divine trickster"[2] and "the god of boundaries and the transgression of boundaries...."

from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

This is a photo of the place where I was in four states all at once!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_...rners,_NM,_reconstructed_monument_in_2010.jpg


Here's someone else doing what I did. https://www.google.com/search?q="fo...UICygC&biw=1280&bih=654#imgrc=XFl-wRQgIJ4XJM:
 
Last edited:
Might be a little late, but I do want to say that the OP's post points to a need for more anti-religious / non-12-step resources for people struggling with all forms of addiction.

And I also wanted to say that addiction isn't necessarily about low self-esteem. It CAN be, but it doesn't have to be. People get addicted to things - sex, drugs, alcohol, facebook, porn, etc - when there's something missing in their lives. When they feel a lack of meaning and power and are unhappy. Doing some volunteer work or switching to a more meaningful career (if possible) might be the solution.
 
Might be a little late, but I do want to say that the OP's post points to a need for more anti-religious / non-12-step resources for people struggling with all forms of addiction.
My impression is that most rehab centers are family-system and relationship based, not spiritually based. Most addiction therapy is also not spiritually or religiously based. There are also a number of Secular AA meetings.

Want to clarify that 12 step programs are not religious and are actually quite strict about no religious dogma talk during the meetings. 12 step programs are spiritually based, but not religious or anything approaching dogmatic. It's all about one's own personal and individual spirituality.
 
And I also wanted to say that addiction isn't necessarily about low self-esteem. It CAN be, but it doesn't have to be. People get addicted to things - sex, drugs, alcohol, facebook, porn, etc - when there's something missing in their lives. When they feel a lack of meaning and power and are unhappy. Doing some volunteer work or switching to a more meaningful career (if possible) might be the solution.

Johann Hari made this same point in his book Chasing the Scream, and a similar point in Lost Connections.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22245552-chasing-the-scream

https://thelostconnections.com/

Part of Hari's point in both of these books is that the modern Western cultural world (in general, but perhaps especially in certain countries like the USA and Britain) fails to offer much opportunity for people to meet many of their basic ("psychological" and social) needs. Not having one's basic needs met leads to mental and emotional difficulties such as anxiety, depression and addiction. (Addiction is often the result of an attempt to dull the anguish of anxiety and depression, after all.)

All of this is most likely going to worsen significantly as climate meltdown continues to worsen, such as is so strikingly on exhibit in the recent California and Greek, etc. wildfires, the various mega-storms, "droughts," etc.... People are already stressed and this adds to the atmosphere of angst and dread. And grief! Let's not forget the grief.
 
Last edited:
PS -

Those reviewers who absolutely hate Johann Hari's book, Chasing the Scream, tend to have one or more things in common with one another. Almost all of them work in the addictions treatment ("harm reduction") field, or are sociological scholars publishing journal articles in this field. They hate the book for offering nothing new or original. BUT I would tell these folks that while the material in the book may not be new and original to them, it appears to be overwhelmingly new, original and unfamiliar to the broad general public.

This tells us something important about the drug war, drug policy and politics around all of this -- does it not?
 
Great resources, River! Thanks.

FallenAngelina - we've had this conversation before, so I'll just say this: 12-step programs may appear secular to religious people, but they aren't. Various religious concepts (you're a piece of crap who needs salvation etc) are built right into the Steps and are absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to the way the programs are designed. This is a disempowerment model that alienates I would estimate about half the people who try it.

AA is great for some, but we need a diversity of programs so that EVERYONE can get their needs met. That diversity is presently lacking. My (perhaps former) partner and I have both tried to create alternative groups, and may try harder in future.
 
12-step programs may appear secular to religious people, but they aren't. Various religious concepts (you're a piece of crap who needs salvation etc) are built right into the Steps and are absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to the way the programs are designed.

I'm not a religious person, never have been and was not raised with religious dogma, although I'm well versed in various religious teachings. I'm Jewish and my roots are in intellectualism and community involvement. "You're a piece of crap who needs salvation" is absolutely not fundamental to the way 12 Step programs are designed, although I don't dispute that this can be the take-away for some people, especially those who have not actually participated in the 12 Steps themselves. 12 Step programs are designed to connect human beings with their individual experience of their individual spirit. Every person who comes into a 12 Step program has, to whatever extent, lost this innate connection and the 12 Step community exists to strengthen and fortify this foundational awareness. True, the concept of the 12 Steps practiced in community was forged in a Christian perspective, but so was just about everything else in the Western World, including the US Constitution. Times have changed and so have the 12 Step programs. Every group I have encountered and certainly all 12 Step literature and protocols sit squarely on the notion of non-religious discussion. As a matter of fact, every group and field office that I'm aware of scrupulously guards against such inferences.

I press these points, not to attempt to change your perspective, but to clarify for those reading along that 12 Step groups can be a tremendously helpful and widely available healing option for everyone who struggles with finding basic human happiness.
 
Last edited:
I press these points, not to attempt to change your perspective, but to clarify for those reading along that 12 Step groups can be a tremendously helpful and widely available healing option for everyone who struggles with finding basic human happiness.

I don't know much about the topic, but it seems to me that Arius' point about a need for "a diversity of programs" might be true even if the 12 steps programs are quite helpful, generally. The 12 steps may be great for some and not the best fit for others, perhaps.
 
The 12 steps may be great for some and not the best fit for others, perhaps.

Absolutely - and the world is full of opportunities for everyone to find his own source of inspiration. Perhaps Arius had a regretfully unpleasant personal experience, but that doesn't mean the programs are religious in nature. I was addressing his misrepresentation of the programs and his inference that I wasn't in a position to evaluate the implicit messages because I might be of a religious background. I'm born and bred in a sea of secular liberalism and believe me, I know the difference between sincere inclusion and judgy, shaming religious overtones.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top