Is there really a pure friendship between men and women?

what is "pure"?

there are always people who say in heterosexual relationships: we are pure. Sometimes they are not hiding, they feel that the relationship is very pure, just friendship.

before we discuss this issue, we need to discuss what purity is.

impurities and mixing are almost inevitable. Nature doesn't believe in purity at all. Quantifiable things are difficult to be absolute, such as error-free error and absolute zero, while the existence of unquantifiable things is even more difficult to discuss purity. For example, what does it mean to be simple and kind? How can anyone be good without evil?

Friendship, love, and kinship, the three basic emotions of interpersonal interaction, must exist between any two individuals who interact at the same time. Mix different collocations to produce different effects. For example, "more than friends, lovers are not satisfied", "get along with each other for a long time", "confidant", "man's female brother", "woman's male best friend", "the fourth emotion" and so on. Just like nature gave the world only three primary colors: red, green, and blue, and then mixed in different proportions to form this colorful world. If you want to purify to pure red, green, and blue, there is probably only a laboratory.

that is to say:

any two individuals who interact with each other have love, friendship, and kinship. It's just a different proportion. The thing about

ratio is: to what extent can you recognize

? To what extent can you accept

?

these are all subjective psychological feelings, your personal feelings, and choices, and there are no criteria of universal significance.

is there an absolute gender in the psychological sense?

A person has absolute gender in the physical sense, but there is no absolute gender in the psychological sense.

when God created man, he set the gene physiologically so that the XY chromosome or the XX chromosome can be quantified, which determines a person's physiological sex. But psychologically, there is no distinction.

psychologist Jung describes this as:

every physiological man has a female side, called anima, and every physiological female has a male side, called animus. We don't drag such technical terms, we only talk about the very intuitive experience of your life:

Men have a woman's side, and women have a man's side.

what Jung means is that psychologically, there are no pure men and women. Everyone is a combination of men and women.

and love is a psychological existence. It can only be discussed in a psychological sense.

so there is love between men and men, men and women, women and women, different combinations of physical genders. Just as different combinations of occupations, ages, and skin colors can produce love. Therefore, there is no pure friendship not only between the opposite sex but also between the same sex.

our cultural taboos suppress some of our instincts. When we grow up, we will be asked to develop and carry out gender identity education according to "men should" and "women should", so we selectively identify with part of our personality and suppress the characteristics of the opposite sex at the same time. And then show it in a form that conforms to social rules. For example, the shoulder-to-shoulder drinking between men and the hand-in-hand shopping between women are all reasonable expressions of same-sex feelings.

if you go further, it will inspire a sense of punishment that is taboo, and it will be expressed in the form of sin-you will feel bad when you think that you have feelings about the same sex.

all the disgusting, in essence, is yearning too much. A taboo is a totem, which is a typical reverse formation. In the process of growing up, if there is not too much gender identity education, such as raising a boy among women and girls as boys, homosexuality will be more likely to occur.

Love itself is a psychological noun. Those who are in love must be psychological men and women. Their gender, age, and hair length are all external forms.

Friendship itself is a rationalized love.

so if you mind his friendship with the opposite sex, you'd better mind the same sex as well. It's safer this way.

is there an absolute role in the psychological sense?

A person has a role in the social sense, but not an absolute role in the psychological sense.

in your role, you may be a parent, child, or relative, but psychologically, you are far more motivated to be a man or woman than a parent or child. That is, you are a man or woman first, and then whose parents or children are you.

so love is greater than affection to some extent. Nature was originally arranged in this way: first, there is love, and then there is affection.

it's just that normally speaking, the stability of love is not as high as that of kinship. Because the latter has blood as a fixture to fix it.

psychologists have also done numerous studies to prove that they have sexual fantasies about heterosexual parents from infancy. Parents have something to do with their babies. This is the famous Oedipus complex. When every boy is 3 years old, this subconscious impulse is strongest, that is, the illusion that he wants to kill his father and marry his mother. So is the girl. You will find that after the age of 3, the girl will consciously or unconsciously want to push the mother away from the father, which will prevent the mother from becoming intimate with the father. This is the embryonic form of love.

Love is regardless of role or age. Just because you are my boss, I don't love you just because you are older than me. By the same token, it is impossible for me not to love you because you are my father and you are more than 20 years older than me.

however, this does not prevent them from being related and affectionate. Affection is mixed with love. Love. In other words, family affection is properly concealing love.

Family affection is also mixed with friendship, otherwise, it is impossible to play happily together. It is even less possible to "treat children as friends".

the role of parents, they are not always parents psychologically. Parents often regard their children as their parents and ask their children to take care of their emotions by asking them to be "obedient". Many of their psychological needs need to be met by their children.

Love is pure?

there is no pure love. Psychologist Harfield found that there are two kinds of love: passionate love and partner love.

passionate love is the most primitive short-term burst of impulses. Partner love is also called kinship love and friendship love. When two people get married for a long time, they are good friends and relatives. Can you say this is love? friendship? Family?

the relationship is the least pure after being married for a long time.

there is another law in psychology that has been proved countless times: all intimate relationships are duplicated in the early years of the mother-child relationships. That is, your love for a person is actually because he bears the function of your mother in his early years. Men and women must be looking for an early mother. When your mother didn't give it to you, he gave it to you, and you fell in love with him. This process has been discussed in "successful lovers are the same as successful parents" (P292).

so love is also a delayed version of family affection.

furthermore, pure love exists only in fantasy. We can't see a person, we can't know someone. Apart from the person, we fall in love with, a large part of what we fall in love with is filled with our imagination. Therefore, when the person in front of us is different from what we imagine, we will conflict with him. Because we fall in love not only with him but also with the one we create with idealization.

it's easy to understand. We love cats, dogs, and Fan Bingbing. You do not know their true heart you are just wishful thinking to put an idealized image of love in front of the object.

Purchasing our sister of groom dresses and mold your beautiful curves. Our magnificent garments will hugely boost your confidence.

does loyalty exist?  

there is no pure friendship between the opposite sex, there is no pure love between lovers, and there is no pure affection between relatives. Purity is just an idealized and unachievable state.

even if you are in a relationship or marriage, you will still have feelings, impulses, and fantasies about people other than your partner. This is what Harfield called passionate love. People can not fall in love, not get married, but it is impossible not to have love.

so, is there loyalty and single-mindedness between lovers?

Unfortunately, it does not exist. People can control their behavior and not go to bed or kiss others. But it's impossible to control your feelings and not generate impulses. Mental infidelity is an inevitable and uncontrollable behavior that is not controlled by willpower. Do you still want to use willpower to ask? It's like asking someone not to dream about other members of the opposite sex.

the so-called loyalty is just a compensation for the lack of original sense of security between lovers. We can't be sure that we deserve to be loved all the time, and we don't trust ourselves and each other, so we have to fix our relationship with external forms such as marriage, loyalty, single-mindedness, vows, and so on. We're too afraid it's unstable.

therefore, the emphasis on loyalty is itself an external compensation for emotional instability.

of course, marriage has other social significance and functions, which we will not discuss. Compensating for instability is just one of its functions.

ask your partner to be loyal, and you are bound to fail. Even if he agrees, it doesn't count if he says so. People's instincts and subconscious are not controlled by consciousness. Language is governed by consciousness. But the scope of control of consciousness is too limited.

some people will retort: I have no impulse toward him /her, no thoughts, and I don't want to be with her!

Yes. You just don't call it "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". You can't say there is no love between you.

as someone asked: is there a pure friendship between men and women? I can only answer: yes, the uglier the purer.

because it's too ugly to fall in love at all. But no matter how ugly there is love. If a person is ugly and you still have contact with him, it must be that he has something other than his appearance that satisfies you and keeps you motivated.

as long as there is a connection between people, there will be feelings. As long as there is love, there will be love.

so, when you are in love, you should boldly admit that you should not cover up love with words such as "more than friends, lovers are not full", "he and I have nothing", "although we are friends of the opposite sex, we are very pure" and so on. At most, this is called: I have feelings for you, but you have not reached the level to fall in love with me.

this is easy to judge: if you could have 1000 partners, would you consider counting him /her as one?

because you can only have one lover, you have to hide it. There are many benefits of your cover-up. For example, you can defend yourself from the guilt of being "unfaithful", "jerk" and "rogue" and continue to pretend that you are a good person. For example, they don't scare each other. For example, to avoid being beaten by so-and-so.

there can be only one lover, but there must be many lovers. Just for some reason in the conscious and subconscious, we can only pretend to have a name, and other lovers must be disguised by impulses, friendships, sexual friends, bosom friends, and other terms. Not intentionally, of course. It's subconscious.

how to deal with feelings?

finally, we're going to repeat the initial question: to what extent can you recognize your feelings for others? To what extent can you accept it?

your partner is goodbye what extent can you accept people's feelings?

then selective abstinence in behavior.

is a question of "degree", not whether there is a problem or not. And "degree" is up to you.

finally, don't take it too seriously, don't force it, and don't pursue absolute security and purity, or you'll make the relationship miserable.