Pointing out the logical possibility of purely platonic friendships between men and women--even very attractive men and women who have a great deal of emotional intimacy and have shared many years of companionship--is not likely to win a fool over precisely because they are irrational. Otherwise, they never would have rejected the idea that men and women are always sexually attracted to each other or would mishandle it. This is not about experience, but about logic, as all truths ultimately are. Social behavioral trends and personal experiences are irrelevant because either way, it is true that platonic friendship is possible (it does not contradict logical axioms), though some people may assume or act as if it is not the case.
A host of things beyond showing physical affection through embraces, engaging in contact though texting or calling, or attending events together are entirely compatible with genuinely platonic friendship. Opposite gender friends could send each other pictures of their bodies, even in minimal clothing, to commemorate events like travel, to show progress in physical fitness, or to encourage/express fashion preferences. They could admire and openly compliment each other's bodies. They could spend regular or prolonged time together alone, whether in a workplace setting or at a movie theater or at a beach (no matter what the friends are or are not wearing). None of this is sexual or mildly romantic in itself, but even if it is intended to be sexually flirtatious, it does not logically follow that anyone is going to act on non-platonic attraction even if it is verbalized.
A date has romantic intention, so the exact same activities that might be pursued during dating, like watching movies, swimming, or having private meals, would not make an interaction romantic or sexual. Would this make a lot of people who call themselves Christians uncomfortable, at least if their significant other was doing them? Probably, but neither opposite gender friendship nor any of these particular expressions of it are condemned by the Bible directly or indirectly, adding to divine obligations as if that changes them is condemned (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32), and formal false accusations of adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), if either of the friends is married, deserve execution (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). The fear that would grip many legalists if only this was applied!
Insecurity and preference are epistemologically and morally meaningless, and they do not dictate reality as logical necessity does. They do not make ideas about friendship, including opposite gender friendships, true or false, they do not make anything morally permissible or evil, and they do not even prove any truths about the matter. This is of course unlikely to be recognized by fools or to stop them even if they thought of it. As if sexual attraction itself has to dominate or ruin friendships if it is present to begin with, some people might think that their own tendency to be non-platonically attracted to many people of the opposite gender is something that everyone relates to (a non sequitur and a fallacy of composition), not that any of these truths would have been different if this was the case. They might stoop to slippery slope fallacies or be reacting irrationally to occasions they were cheated on.
Correcting these people is not necessarily enough. They do not look to reason on their own, or else this correction would not be necessary. They do not tend to admit their stupidity when confronted, or else the majority of people would renounce this idiocy as soon as a rational person (not that there are many!) corners them on this. No, correction is not enough; outright mockery that goes right up the line of malice without ever crossing it--which is Biblically permissible since this is never condemned (Deuteronomy 12:32)--might at least intimidate them into silence. Whenever a person does not abandon their irrationality, the next best thing is them feeling like they will be ideologically, emotionally, and verbally torn apart whenever they show their real delusional self.
Doing whatever you want as long as it is not irrational or immoral is the only valid way to live. Bowing to society, to fools, or even to one's own significant other is asinine. So, too, is tolerating stupidity when it arises. There are far more things that are either directly connected to romance and sexuality or that, like platonic friendship between men and women, are not romantic or sexual in nature whatsoever which make certain people uncomfortable. Their discomfort is of no epistemological weight or metaphysical confirmation about the real nature of things other than their own petty minds. Someone could be uncomfortable and never let it dictate their worldview or actions--very few actually do this and thus confrontation, refutation, and even mockery are sometimes needed. With a topic like this, it is easy to make some irrational people hurt without ever resorting to fallacies, malice, or slander.
No comments:
Post a Comment