About Me

  • I'm a semi-retired professional man, living in the Midwestern United States. This blog is a personal blog and is not directly connected with my professional practice (although I may draw upon my professional experiences, as well as my personal experiences, in writing my blog posts). This is a place for personal, not professional, opinions.

Search This Site

Subscribe to Counseling Kevin

Blog powered by Typepad


« Slipping The Surly Bonds Of Earth | Main | Forget With Generosity »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This is a thoughtful post. As a woman with a few close male friends, what I think you have to watch out for is a friendship turning into an emotional affair. It's not just having sex that is risky. It's treating the man and him treating you like a lover rather than a friend. But, I think you're right that a man and a woman can be close friends without sex getting in the way.

You always make me think :-)


Thank you, Suz. While I am convinced that the entire notion of an "emotional affair" was concocted by Dr. Phil to give us one more amorphous thing to worry about, I promise to be constantly on my guard against it. To me, the line is not bright, and I'll risk crossing it rather than risk the loss of the connection. I've closed enough doors in my life. I'm not closing any more.


I think it's impossible for men and women not to have some sexual tension underlying their relationships. It's our nature. Like you said, it's how you manage the tension that's important. If you're not keeping secrets from your wife and she's cool with the friendship, then I don't see the problem.


I have friendships with women where there is no sexual tension, at least not on my part (and I suspect that if anyone alleged it, the women would scream "EEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!"). So, I guess that I think Harry is even more wrong than I initially thought. The danger isn't in all friendships, but only those where the sexual tension actually exists under the surface.

I agree with you, Don, about secrecy. Since this is all right here on my blog, secrecy is not an issue.

Jogger, Texas Ranger

I wish you'd write more often. I forget to check on you.

I think you're playing with fire. No matter what your moral code or hers, no matter how strong you think your willpower or hers might be, no matter what your definition of love, the heart wants what it wants and will have it. Period. End of story.

Burn those bridges, Hoss. My 2 cents.


Thanks, as always, for the unvarnished opinion, Jogger.

I respectfully disagree. In my actual experience, the heart does NOT always have what it wants or even, in some cases, what it needs. Life is way too grey for black-and-white rules, no matter how much I, personally, would like to construct and follow them. It's dirty, dusty, and messy.

That said, the proposal made by me in this post may very well be unworkable "in real life."

Thanks for the thoughts,

Crystal Gimesh

Call me an eternal optimist or maybe just naive, but I am still betting on the side of transcendence.

"I think that it is useless to fight directly against natural weaknesses. One has to force oneself to act as though one did not have them in circumstances where a duty makes it imperative; and in the ordinary course of life one has to know these weaknesses, prudently take them into account, and strive to turn them to good purpose; for they are all capable of being put to some good purpose."

- Simone Weil, Waiting For God


I'm voting for eternal optimist, Crystal. I actually like your variation better than my main theme. Turning our weakness to good purpose. Easier said than done, but worth the struggle, yes?

The comments to this entry are closed.