'Hey, you wanna grab a movie tonight as I am quite bored?' 'Sure, yeah, sounds good.' Her internal voice: 'man, I am so glad I have a friend I can do stuff with'. His internal voice 'man, I am so glad I have a friend I can have sex with'.

Ahh, the age old question and debacle on whether or not guys and girls can be 'just' friends or if sex will always be a third wheel in the relationship.  The concept first came from the movie When Harry Met Sally which sets the stage for the question:

What I'm saying is... and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form, is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.

Then, in a more recent movie called Young People F**king, there is the storyline of the best friends who decide to become friends with benefits, but discover romantic feelings for each other:

 Sometimes its something, sometimes its meaningful sometimes its caressing faces, and fingers intertwined and whispering little secrets in ears and sometimes a fuck is just a fuck, its grinding your shit and emptying your balls and falling asleep right after you cum and that’s what you and I are going to do to one another coz that’s what friends are for..

One slightly funny thing about the above two quotes is that the first one comes from Harry, the boy, while the second one comes from Kris, the girl.  So that can beg a question as to whether or not it is just boys who think about the sex aspect of a cross-sex friendship or if it is also girls who have that mentality.  It always seems like boys have the ulterior motive; that boys always has sex on the brain, that boys are more promiscuous than girls, which can lead to men wanting to have sexual relations with their female friends.  Is sex the pure motive for opposite sex friendships for men?  Is sex anyhow related to a motive for a female to have a male as a friend?  In all honesty, how much does sex play in opposite sex friendships?

If the sex aspect does come into play in the relationship, who does it affect the most - girls or guys?  Some may think that it will affect the girls more because they connect both emotionally and physically that the sex aspect may throw a wrench into things and that for guys, sex is a pleasurable thing they search for and they don't have the same emotional connection with sex that girls do.  Some may think that it won't affect the girls because having that connection is better than having no connection at all.   

First off, there has been an emphasis on heterosexual romantic relationships which leads to a cultural expectation that the relationship between a man and a woman should be romantic or sexual in nature.  Therefore, cross-sex friendships are viewed as containing a hidden sexual agenda by at least one of the sexes, which is stereotypically the male (Kaplan, D.L & Keys, C.B. (1997).  Sex and relationship variables as predictors of sexual attraction in cross-sex platonic friendships between young heterosexual adults.  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(2), 191-206.)  Halastis and Christakis (2009) found the same thing; attraction is an intense challenge in cross sex friendships even when there is no sexual tension because of the dominant social and cultural perception of there being manifest or latent sexual/romantic attraction in the friendship (Halatsis, P. & Christakis, N. (2009).  The challenge of sexual attraction within heterosexuals' cross-sex friendship.  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7), 919-937). But here is some food for thought - it is more cultural expectations or just the way we are hardwired?  As in, is it more of something that has been instilled in us that women and men need to be together to procreate and continue family lines and all that jazz? 

Secondly, does the attraction happen on both sides of the relationship or does one sex feel an attraction more than the other?  Gut instinct says that guys feel the attraction more than women, but how accurate is that?  Slightly surprisingly, a majority of men reported to having low to moderate levels of sexual attraction towards their female friends (53 % males and 31% females) in a study done by Schneider and Kenny (Schneider, C.S. & Kenny, D.A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners:  Are they platonic friends now?  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 451-466). However, in Afifi and Faulkner's study (2000), they found that at least one member of many cross-sex friendships experience sexual attraction for their friend (Afifi, W. A & Faulkner, S. L. (2000).  On being 'just friends': The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships.  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 205-222).  So even studies are at odds with each other as to how prevalent attraction is between men and women in a platonic relationship.  It would be hard to refute that it does not happen as you can see in many stories that relationships arise out of friendships first, but when you have two people who have no desire to be in a relationship, does that thinking of the need to have sex with the opposite sex become too much to handle?

Finally, if the sexes are aware of this potential attraction, is that why they enter the relationship in the first place?  We have the need to feel loved, wanted, enjoyed, surrounded by people we love and who love us; we are social creatures by habit so it would make sense to surround ourselves with people who love us in return, either sexual love or platonic love.  Ackerman and Kenrick (2009) found that people do want to feel attractive to others, want to find that companionship and connect with romantic partners who are warm, committed, intelligent and interesting (Ackerman, J. M & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Cooperative courtship:  Helping friends raise and raze relationship barriers.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1285-1300).  This should cause a pause in thought as it adds to the argument that there is always underlying reasons for the friendships; it is another reason why people are always looking for more than just a friendship.  Another reason that was found in why cross-friendships occurred was in the hopes for potential relationships outside the immediate friendship; having a friend to introduce them to the opposite sex was perceived as beneficial to men and women in opposite sex friendships (Bleske, A.L. & Buss, D.M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? Personal Relationships, 7, 131-151.).  That statement has quite a bit of weight to it cause, come on, how many of us girls have heard that age old line 'is your friend hot?'.  It gets annoying really.  Furthermore, being in a cross-sex friendship may help people feel good about themselves when they are having one of those down in the dumps day, where they just want to feel sexy and wanted;  66% of individuals in cross-sex friendships engaged in sexual remarks, teasing or jokes with their opposite-sex friends (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000). 

Okay, so what about individual sexes?  When parsing men and women apart, how does their individual thinking apply to the relationship?  With men, one may think that sex is clearly the main reason to enter into a non-relationship relationship with a woman as we all think that sex is the only thing on a male's mind. This was found in many, many studies:  single men and mated men judged sexual attraction as a more important reason than did women for initiating their most important opposite-sex friendship (Bleske-Rechek, A.L & Buss, D.M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendship:  Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection and dissolution.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1310-1323), men more than women seem to be motivated by sexual attraction to establish cross-sex friendships; men enjoy flirting with cross-sex friends more than women and that men are more likely than women to believe that cross-sex friends can become sexual partners (Kaplan & Keys, 1997), sexual elements appears stronger for men (Halatsis & Christakis, 2009) and men valued the possibility of sexual activity within opposite-sex friends and preferred traits consistent with this possibility (eg physical attractiveness) in their friends (Ackerman & Kenrick, 2009).  However, there was one study, just *one* that found that sex is clearly not the only motivator - men rated companionship, self-disclosure and gaining information about the opposite sex as higher in benefit than sex (Bleske & Buss, 2000).  But, the evidence is pretty clear that men do have sex on the brain at all times and thus is the main reason why they enter into friendships with women. 

Now lets look at the women; do women have sex on the brain as well or is there a different motivator to be friends with men?  The evidence is not as plentiful as with the men, but it was found that women are likely to perceive their opposite-sex friends as both potential long-term partners and short-term sex partners (Bleske-Rechek & Buss, 2001) and single women perceived sexual attraction as a more important reason for initiating an opposite-sex friendship than did mated women (Bleske-Rechek & Buss, 2001).  However, on the flip side, it was found in a study that four out of every ten women wanted a sexual dimension in at least some of their male friendship (Halatsis & Christakis, 2009), so that is a little less than half.  It was finally found that women may form relationships with men who are both physically strong and willing to provide physical protection in dangerous situations (Ackerman & Kenrick, (2009).  The evidence is fairly split as to what prompts women to enter into friendships with men - it could be because women feel the need to have that strong, masculine figure in their life (benevolent sexism at its finest) or that women are just as horny of creatures as men and are looking for that sexual aspect that is lacking in their life. 

Once that sexual aspect has been introduced into the relationship, is the friendship then doomed and put into the 'friends with benefits' category instead or does the friendship remain intact with a little side funness?  The evidence is quite one-sided when scientists looked at the aftermath of having sex with a friend - a substantial number of opposite-sex friendships end because of physical distance or failed attempts at romance (Bleske-Rechek & Buss (2001),  causes confusion concerning the relationship's definition and nullifies the benefits of the cross-sex friendship (Halatsis & Charistakis, 2009) and that, for most of the participants, sexual attraction that emerges in cross-sex friendship is described as something that will inevitably devalue the friendship (Halatsis & Charistakis, 2009).  This may have to do with the fact that there are added expectations placed on the friendship, that there is more pressure on the sexes to act and behave a certain way and also that jealousy may rear its ugly head as there may be a little bit of possessiveness that comes with that sexual attraction. 

When it all comes down to it, yes, sex plays a massive role in cross-sex friendships.  In a round about way, the answer to whether or not men and women can be just friends is no because both sexes usually have sex on the brain and once that sexual aspect has been introduced, the friendship deteriorates.  The way Harry put it is the best way to answer this age old question:


 Harry: Because no man can be friends with a woman he finds attractive, healways wants to have sex with her.Sally: So you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he findsunattractive.Harry: Nuh, you pretty much wanna nail'em too.Sally: What if they don't want to have sex with you?Harry: Doesn't matter, because the sex thing is already out there so thefriendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.

Merry Christmas!! She opens her gift, all excited and then is puzzled "You got me earrings? But I don't even have pierced ears?!" Him, looking all smug 'Well, they were expensive, so I thought you would appreciate them more." She then hides her thoughtful card and tells him that his gift is on its way. And this will be the first of many confusing gift giving moments.

Oh, Christmastime - that wonderful last time of the year when you have to rake your mind to come up with the most thoughtful gift for that special someone who gives you a gift certificate to a restaurant you don't even like (but they do) in return.  Between birthdays, valentine's day, special occasions and Christmas, it seems like gifts are given all year round, which isn't a bad thing mind you, but maybe people view it more material than emotional.  Maybe, just maybe, some people have listened to Material Girl by Madonna or Santa Baby by Marilyn Monroe one too many times.  It is as Eric Fromm put it - "we live in a world of things, and our only connection with them is that we know how to manipulate or to consume them".


First off, what is a "gift"? According to J. Clarke (2007), a gift is "a ritual offering that is a sign of involvement in and connectedness to another" (The Four 'S's' of Experience Gift Giving Behavior, Hospitality Management, 26, 98-116).  In another article, a gift is defined as "a good or service voluntarily provided to another person or group through some sort of ritual presentation" (Nguyen, H.P. & Munch, J.M. (2011).  Romantic gift giving as chore or pleasure:  The effects of attachment orientations on gift giving perceptions.  Journal of Business Research, 64, 113-118.) And then there is Webster's definition being "anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering".  There are some re-occurring themes between the three definitions - offerings, rituals, voluntary and between people.  However, the differences are the key - involvement, connectedness and without compensation.


When it comes to birthdays or special occasions (like graduation, first communion, etc), people give gifts without compensation - they are giving gifts because it is the 'ritual' thing to do, so we are not going to focus on that as we want to focus more on the offerings that are between people.  Like, for example, when the gifts are between romantic people, for Christmas, for anniversaries, events like that.  Usually there is some form of compensation that is at the base of the reason of giving the gift in the first place.  Gifts can be used as a way to jump start the relationship ('for our one month, I got you a pair of Christian Louboutin shoes'), initiate and reciprocate gift giving ('since I got you shoes, what did you get me?') and can help the givers reinforce highly valued unstable relationships ('I am so sorry I lied to you about smoking, here are some donuts') (Nguyen & Munch, 2011).  Regardless of the reason, the giver is usually looking for something in return.  However, there can be other reasons for providing gifts, other than societal practices: the need to recognize and maintain a status hierarchy, the need to establish or maintain peaceful relations or simply the expectation of reciprocal giving (Nguyen & Munch, 2011). 


So, judging from the above, do people give gifts because they feel it is an obligation? Due to their personality? Or a combination of both?  Clarke (2007) found that there is an obligation in giving gifts in that there is a sense of indebtedness to the recipient as well as the art of gift giving drives the gift exchange system (I give you something, you give me something and vice versa until someone tells us to stop).  Furthermore, the obligation may arise because the giver has a knowledge of the personality of the recipient and the nature of the relationship (Clarke, 2007), so that they may feel that they have to give their girlfriend flowers every week, or buy her shoes whenever she has a bad day.    And then the type of personality has an important role in giving gifts.  Secure people (think Rabbit from Winnie the Pooh) enjoy giving gifts just for the pleasure of giving.  Both of us are secure type people, and it shows as we both get our managers/lawyers/people above us gifts without expecting or needing something in return - we do it because we enjoy getting them gifts.  On the other hand, anxious people (think Piglet) will find that gift giving is an obligation and may perhaps have a panic attack just thinking of trying to find the 'right' gift for that special person.  Finally, avoidant people (think Eeyore) will try to avoid giving gifts period and if they do, it is such an obligation for them to do it  (Nguyen & Munch, 2011). Finally, there is always the debacle of giving a gift because you want to make the recipient happy (altruistic) or give a gift to feel good about oneself (agnostic) (Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R. & Homer, P. (1991). Personal values and gift-giving behaviors:  A study across cultures, Journal of Business Research, 22, 149-157).


So once a person decides (either out of obligation or personality) to get a gift, the next question is what type of gift to give - do you go expensive or thoughtful?  Can a person see both in a gift or just one or the other?  The first thing that a person should take into account when getting a gift for a person is who the person is, what they like, what they value and the reason for the gift.  Understanding gift behaviors revolves around the concepts of exchange, reciprocity and the establishment, maintenance, growth or termination of a relationship (Parsons, A.G.; Ballantie, P.W. & Kennedy, A. (2011). Gift exchange: benefits sought by the recipient, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(7/8), 411-423).  Our view is that if the giver is giving a gift because they feel obligated to and don't put that much thought into the gift, it is better to not receive a gift at all.  One example was when being a waitress; a table had left a tip in the amount of, oh around, $2.someoddchange, all in pennies, nickles and dimes.  The waitress casually picked up the change, followed the patrons out to the lobby and kindly gave the money back, stating that nothing would have been better than what they left.  Another example is a friend gave another friend a super uber ugly purse just to give that person a gift and maybe it would have been better to give nothing that something super useless.  Gifts, in our eyes as well as Clarke (2007) think that gifts are valued more for their symbolism than for the transfer of material benefits.   


When it comes to expensive v. thoughtful gifts, it was found that people often struggle to take account of others' perspectives (Flynn, F.J & Adams, G. S. (2009)Money can't buy love: Asymmetic beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 404-409) and it seems that, from research perspective, that people tend to lean towards getting the expensive gift as it is easier to go buy something popular and out there rather than think about something that will be sentimental and meaningful.  So when buying the expensive gift, it also seems that the givers think that what they like will be something the recipient will like and that if it is something that everyone is getting, then the recipient will like it.  Most of the time, givers will think that bigger, more expensive gifts will portray stronger signals of thoughtfulness and consideration than gifts that are smaller or emotional.  Flynn (2009) also found that givers who give such extravagant gifts expect more appreciation for their gift.  However, this can be flipped around.  If the recipient is expecting/hoping for an expensive gift and gets something cheaper, they can be disappointed.  So then what makes the thoughtful gift?  To us, it is something that has a meaning between the giver and the recipient.  Something that the giver put some thought into and actually took into consideration what the recipient would like.  And something that the giver gave because they wanted to, not because they had to.  Clarke (2007) found the same thing when he realized what makes a perfect gift : show donor sacrifice, donors sole wish should be recipient pleasure, gift is a luxury, gift is uniquely appropriate to the recipient, surprise and gift succeeds in pleasing the recipient. 

Alrighty, so where does this leave us, what was the purpose of this posting?  That is a good question.  With Christmas now ending (it took some time writing this posting), and people talking about what they got, we got to looking at our respective scenerios.  In the one family, we do not do gifts as when the whole family is together, that is a gift in and of itself, so we have stopped giving gifts.  In the other family, gifts are still given, but just for the sake of giving them, so it may be better just to stop altogether.  The simpliest of gifts can mean the most of people; a single flower, a book, a cd with music on it or, and this is the greatest in our perspectives, hugs.  So when it comes time to giving gifts, look at the reason why you are giving it, to whom you are giving it to, and the gift itself.  And when in doubt, give hugs - A hug is a great gift as one size fits all and it's easy to exchange.

Oooohh woe; woe is me!! Kind sir, will you please help me? Never fret Madam Damsel in Distress, I will gladly help you......for a price, of course.....

Halloween evening.  Scary people everywhere.  A lone, innocent, scared female walking down the street, smoke billowing behind her as she walks.  She looks around, panicky.  Suddenly she finds herself surrounded by people in masks, costumes; laughing and pushing each other.  She sees a ray of light - a male, walking alone, no costume.  He walks near her, she grabs his arm and asks him to stay still as she hides behind him.  The people in the costumes continue walking and when the coast is clear, she thanks her savior for stopping to help her.  They walk a bit until they say their goodbyes and part ways.   Was he doing this out of the goodness of his heart, or was there some sort of ulterior motive that he wasn't able to get out of it? Was he, gasp, a real knight in shining armor?

People can have the age old discussion about selfless good deeds.  I remember the one Friends episode, the one that people probably remember just as I do, where Joey states "It made you feel good, so that makes it selfish. Look, there's no unselfish good deeds, sorry." Is he true?  There is also a quote by W. Somerset Maugham from Of Human Bondage where he says "It is pleasure that lurks in the practice of every one of your virtues. Man performs actions because they are good for him, and when they are good for other people as well they are thought virtuous: if he finds pleasure in helping others he is benevolent; if he finds pleasure in working for society he is public-spirited; but it is for your private pleasure that you give twopence to a beggar as much as it is for my private pleasure that I drink another whiskey and soda. I, less of a humbug than you, neither applaud myself for my pleasure nor demand your admiration.” So, before we start this whole rigamaroll about selfless good deeds, lets get a definition of altruism down on paper.  According to PsychologyandSociety, altruism is helping behavior that is motivated by a selfless concern for the welfare of another person.

Okay, so first things first, who is helpful, who is not, and what determines the same?  Just like in any social situations, we act in ways that society would deem acceptable.  Most people, when seeing a person in need, will stop and help them, regardless of whether they are doing it out of the pure goodness of their heart, or if they need to fulfill their one good deed for the day.  Notably, people's motives and behaviors are related to the importance that they place on various aspects of their identity so that two otherwise identical individuals may respond quite differently to the same event if their identities differ (Leary, M.R.; Toner, K; Gan, M. (2011). Self, Identity and Reactions to Distal Threats: The Case of Environmental Behavior.  Psychological Studies, 56(1), 159-166).  The young man in the above-noted situation could have acted in many different ways - looked at the woman like she was crazy, shook her off his arm and kept walking; did the whole movie scenerio and kissed her soundly on the lips while the scary costume people walked by, laughed at her when she told him her phobia, and many other scenerios could have happened, and that all depended on his disposition and demenour at the time.  What has been found, and makes a crap load of sense, is that human beings are both prosocial and self-serving, often exhibiting both behaviors in a short period of time (Zak et al. (2009) Testosterone Administration Decreases Generosity in the Ultimatum Game. PLoS ONE 4(12)).  However, if a person is prosocial and self-serving, then they aren't truely altruistic.  Does that matter though?  If they help a person out, shouldn't that be good enough? However, it was found by Simpson and Willer (2008) that potential helpers respond strategically to the presence or absence of certain benefits, cooperating at higher levels when reputational benefits and possibilities of indirect reciprocity exist versus when they do not  (Altruism and Indirect Reciprocity: The Interaction of Person and Situation in Prosocial Behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 37-52).  So maybe the young man helped as he thought there would be something in it for him, such as a thank you kiss, hug, or the exchange of numbers, or, to the somewhat extreme, some 'I'm so grateful and thankful' sex. 

Which leads to another dimension of this discussion - men and their helpful nature.  Just from our experiences, men derive some sort of sexual connotation from almost anything.  'Oh, she just flipped her hair; she wants me!!' 'She just did the vertical dance with me, she must have to do the horizontal mambo now'.  The simplist of things can portray into a sexual feeling for men (and some women I guess we should say as well).  It was found that males do tend to impute sexual interest to females when it is not intended (Abbey, A. (1982).  Sex Differences in Attributions for Friendly Behavior:  Do Males Mispercieve Females' Friendliness?  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 830-838).  Maybe the clutching of his arm made him think that if he helped her, he would get some sort of sexual compensation.  There is also the mentality of the damsel in distress, in dire need of a hero to rescue her from harm's way that could be in play.  The knight in shining armor, ride up on his noble steed, etc etc; the good old idea of benevloent sexism.  When there is a perceived threat, men show an increased desire to protect and cherish women, and women show an increased desire to be protected and cherished.  (Phelan, J.E., Sanchez, D.T. & Broccoli, T.L. (2010) The Danger in Sexism:  The Links Among Fear of Crime, Benevolent Sexism and Well-Being. Sex Roles, 62, 35-47).    So maybe that could have also been at play - the young man saw a frightful woman, tears glistening in her eyes, a helpless look on her face and he though that this was his chance to be that knight in shining armour and feel strong and needed. 

On the other hand, does that thought play out in any situation, or does it depend on the woman?  Let's say that there was a model-variety woman who needed help and a homeless looking woman who needed help - which woman would the man help should he have the chance?  And same for women - does the man's looks factor into her needing help?  A study was done by Li et al (2008) wherein they studied kindness over attractiveness and when it depened on which one had more bearings on the situation.  They found that under low stress, men favored attractive women over kind women, and under high stress, men favored kind women.  As for women, it did not matter as to the situation, they favored kind affilitates over attractive ones
(The Stress-Affiliation Paradigm Revisited:  Do People Prefer the Kindness of Strangers or Their Attractiveness?  Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 382-391).  What the study does not delve into is what constitutes as high stress and low stress seeing as everyone feels stress differently.  What is probably most important is the part of the women - regardless of their situation, they look for kindness over attraction.  Attraction would probably just be a wonderful addition if it was there.  The kindness in men could probably also be explained by Zak et al's study in that men with naturally high testosterone levels would be expected to be more selfish, which would probably lead to them thinking that if they did something nice for a woman, compensation would be given.  Now, granted this could be some very over reaching correlations in that high testosterone men are more attractive than low testosterone men, but maybe we aren't that far out of the ballpark.  But then there is also the benevolent sexism mentality that can creep in - if a woman is afraid and needs protection, would you rather ask a beanpole, twig of a man to help you out or a man who hits the gym all the time and is boisterous and big to help out.  But, nonetheless, and I will reiterate, that for women, kindness trumps attractiveness in a stressful situation. 

Are we out to lunch to think that there are ulterior motives when people help other people?  Or more specifically, men helping women?  Some men can just help to help but that is only when they have gotten to know the woman.  If it is woman they don't know, there is a potential for having an ulterior motive.  Past situations may also have a hand in helping people.  If one gets compensation for helping one, then they may try to help people in the future because of that compensation.  A simple thank you kiss or a hug can skew the situation in the man's brain as men mistakenly interpret women's friendliness as an indication of sexual interest (Abbey).   It could totally depend on the situation.  There is a difference between helping a random woman out on the street by just standing there with her or paying someone you barely know $1,000 for rent.  It doesn't take too much of time or effort to stand there with a person, but to fork out $1,000, that is a totally different bag of worms.  Romer, Gruder and Lizzadro (1986) studied the same concept and found that situations are important in determining individual tendencies to help (A Person-Situated Approach to Altruistic Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1001-1012). 

The fact that kindness/attractiveness and the situation determines when one will be helpful seems very sad.   Maybe life would be so much better if everyone exhibits altruistic behavior, regardless of looks or situations; however, that could be uber naive of us.  But are we also too cynical that when someone does do a good deed, we feel that there may be an ulterior motive behind it?  Someone could take a situation that at first glance seems too good to be true, and then they start to over think it. 'Why was that person so helpful?' 'What was in it for them, other than feeling good about themself?'  People view behaviors that at first blush seem selfless to be more selfish (Critcher C.R. & Dunning. D. (2011). No Good Deed Goes Unquestioned:  Cynical Reconstruals Maintain Belief in the Power of Self-Interest.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1204-1213) and it is sad that this happens as it must mean that things in the past have been selfish when they should have been selfless or just plain helping nature; however, there is no one to blame but ourselves as it is our own attributional thoughts that change our way of thinking when it comes to kindness. 

So where does this leave us?  Well, for starters, in case you were pondering and pondering about the first little excerpt, this is a true story.  It happened to one of the writers.  And she fell victim to thinking that the helpful young man was just really nice and kind but then changed her thinking to perhaps he wanted something more out of her mere thank you and hug.  But maybe not.  We shouldn't automatically think that there are ulterior motives as that will make us such cynical people and not trust anyone.  There are the people out there that will help people out of the goodness of their hearts, and those people should be revered for what they do.  Kindness can mean so much to people even when it is in the simplist of things, like standing with a frightened woman.  The answer to the question 'can something be truly altruistic' probably wasn't answered at all in the above word vomit, but will it ever be answered?  Maybe there can never be an act that is truely alturistic because one will either hope that some other will benefit, hope for a thanks or some recognition and that the act won't go completely unnoticed.  On the other hand, what if it is for the greater good, the welfare of the people, and although you get a thanks for it, it still was for the people and not the individual, does that classify as altruistic?  Can one get absolutely nothing from the deed in order to be altruisitc?  That is a question that will probably be never answered as everyone has their own take on the subject.  Maybe what we should do is when somebody does a kind act for us, we thank them for helping us and not assume there was an ulterior motive.  Maybe then we will enjoy helping others and the world will be a less cynical place to live in. 

To end this random word vomitted blog, a quote:  it is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen:  that is the common right of humanity.  - Seneca

The polite yet flirty laughter. Then the arm graze while reaching for the drink. Looking him in the eyes. Casually look down. Down more. No, not where you think. The hand. No ring? Score! Wait. Which hand again? Oh shit.

Does the wedding ring symbolize as strong as a meaning that it has in the past?  I have noticed that both in the professional world (from restaurant managers to lawyers) and societal world (friends and family), people don't wear their wedding rings as often as older generations have.  There is a woman in the firm I work at that has never taken off her wedding ring.  There is also a younger lawyer  who has yet to wear his wedding ring (but there are others who are the outliers - there is a younger lawyer who does wear his wedding ring).  So, having that knowledge, when going out, if everything is going swimmingly and one gets two or three men hit on her that night, she does the customary finger check (and doubles check to make sure she looks at the right finger.....that is slightly embarrassing if she checks the wrong finger) for the ring and doesn't see it, is she justified in thinking that he is fair game?  Would there be any behavioural tendencies that may separate the single men from the married? 

Well, first off, let's get a little derailed at the moment.  Let's kind of branch off from last blog about the wonderful pick up lines which can lead into flirting since flirting is the way people communicate, well, that is what it seems like.  One of my utmost favorite descriptions of a woman goes like this: "she was so extraordinarily beautiful that I nearly laughed out loud.  She was famine, fire, destruction and plague. . . the one true begetter.  Her breasts were apocalyptic, they would topple empires before they withered...her body was a miracle of construction... She was unquestionably gorgeous.   She was lavish.  She was a dark, unyielding largesse.  She was, in short, too bloody much... Those huge violet blue eyes...had an odd glint...Aeons passed, civilizations came and went while these cosmic headlights examined my flawed personality.  Every pockmark on my face became a crater of the moon."  This was the first description Richard Burton had of Elizabeth Taylor.  To have a guy say something as poetic and unforgettable such as that about me would be the most wonderful feeling ever I would think, but lets not get a hold of ourselves.  Last posting had to do with guys who used the words 'if your heart was a prison, I would like to be sentenced for life".  I could not ever fathom Richard Burton, James Stewart or Rock Hudson ever spouting off lines like that.    So, when Richard Burke first saw Elizabeth Taylor, or Cary Grant first saw Dyan Cannon, did they spout off some sleazy, cliche one liner pickup line? I think not.   

There are two types of people who flirt - single people and married people.  Regardless of ones relationship status, we are programmed to flirt -it is in our biology and our culture (Luscombe (2008); The Science of Romance).  Does being married or single change the intention behind flirting?  Henningsen (2004) performed a study wherein it was found that there was six motivations behind flirting, regardless of being single or married.  Sexual motivation - I would have been surprised if this wasn't an outcome..... Relational motivation - a desire for increased relational intimacy or, on the flip side, extra-dyadic flirting may be viewed as a relational threat.  Fun motivation - distractions, enjoyable, passes the time, etc etc.  Basically as a fun and harmless activity.  Exploring motivation - to test the waters at first; indirectly signal a desire to initiate a relationship.  Esteem motivation - build one's own self-esteem.  The whole flattery aspect of flirting behaviors.  Instrumental motivation - to get something (goods, services, assistance). 

So, being married and single, it doesn't matter - people are going to flirt regardless.  Most of the time, flirting is harmless.  It is just a joyous banter between two people that can be light and airy or have such sexual tension behind it, but regardless of the intention, there will always be flirting.  But there is always a chance that something may happen from flirting.  Does that stop married men; the possibility that their flirting may go beyond the bar or club or wherever and end up in the bedroom?  Perhaps, as was found with Luscombe, they like that idea of something else happening, that danger of stepping over that line.  Married flirting apart from single flirting is that it has a much greater degree or danger and fantasy to it.  Stakes are higher, risk is greater.  Flirting is a decaf affair, a way of feeling more alive, more vital, more desirable without actually endangering the happiness of anyone you love.  (Luscombe (2008); The Science of Romance).  Perhaps that is why, at least in my experience, married men openly flirt more and their flirtatious nature is more fun and free.  However, that seems ass backwards to me - on one hand, I would think that married men would be more cautious about flirting as it can lead to other things.  But then the other hand says that married men have confidence and nothing to lose that makes them be so flirtatious and friendly.

So, where does that leave us?  Flirting can be something that is just fun and enjoyable and pass the evening in laughter and smiles, or it can be something meaningful and have a purpose behind it. Now, if the guy is married or single, should that matter?  Probably not if you are just looking for a  night of just fun and lightheartedness.  Married men seem to know what to say to women, the right lines, how to make them feel wanted and beautiful - not a bad thing.   But if the woman is one who wants something more than that one night, don't flirt with the married man, and don't get angry at the fact that he is flirting.  What do I say? Let the married men flirt; let him have his cake and eat it too. 

'Do you wanna dance?' 'No.' 'I don't see a wedding ring'. 'I'm pregnant'. (He runs away).

We have all heard the wonderful pick up lines that men come to us with - are you from Tennessee cause you are the only 10 I see; are your legs tired cause you have been running through my mind all day; hi, I am an astronaut and my next mission is to explore Uranus.  The classic ambigous one-liners that guys attempt to get a foot into the bedroom door.  I was always curious as to whether girls actually fell for these lines. 

Going out Saturday night for a friend's birthday party, I got to see first hand at guys' pick up lines and girls' responses to same.  It was an eventful evening and I am glad I went as it was an experience and a half. 

I guess to paint the background picture, we (as in 6 girls and 1 guy) were dancing near our table as the dancefloor was packed and a guy came up and asked the girl beside me if she wanted to dance.  She said no, he replied with something along the lines of him not seeing a wedding ring (points for observation I guess), and she says that she is pregnant (and what is funny is that she is about 80 pounds wet, but she managed to stick out her gut enough to make it look like she was pregnant).  He then backs away, turns to another girl in our group and asks her to dance, and her, not liking the idea of being sloppy seconds, replies to him that she will dance with him if he is her baby's daddy.  Shockingly, or maybe not so shockingly, he stuck around and they danced.  Did he know that we were laughing at him; did he like the very straightforward honesty that the girl gave him about wanting him to be the father of her child (she does not want to get pregnant, to make sure that is clear); was he just so horny that he was trying to pick up anybody (no offense to the girl)?  It got me to thinking about pick up lines and what works on men and women. 

In a study done by Bale et al (2006), they found that women don't like the wonderful, fantabulous one-liners, sexual innendoes or even compliments as an introduction (are those space pants cause your ass is outta this world!!).  If women did respond to the risque pick-up lines and cheesy compliments, these women prefer the 'bad boys', and, what's uber interesting is that these women scored high on psychotocism, which is a measure of antisocial tendencies (Cooper et al, 2007).  I guess it depends on what the girl is looking for - if she is looking for a one night thing, coyote ugly type of situation, then the one-liners would work perfectly for them.  However, if, on the other hand, it was me, I would laugh at the one-liner, tell him to go find a drunker woman, and good luck.  Although, sometimes I find it quite outstanding when a guy out and out asks for sex.  No beating around the bush, no innuendoes or hazy lines.  I find it outstanding, yes, but would I jump into it, absolutely not.  A study has agreed with my view as they found that men were rated lowest when they directly requested sex or used sexual humor (Wade, Butrie and Hoffman, 2009). 

I guess it would be hard to say what pick up line would work on a person as it depends on the situation and the person.  While I was out at dinner, I was talking with a guy and he was telling me that he makes good money, he looks good as he works out, he checks out women all the time, he wants a sexy secretary.  I don't know if he was trying to impress me with his lifestyle, but it wasn't working.  However, studies has shown that a man's chances of picking up a woman will be greater when he displays personal qualities, interests, wealth (Cooper et al 2007) and cultural accomplishments.  Maybe it depends on how it is portrayed as I find that when men start spouting off their income, where they have all travelled, it is almost boasting.  Maybe a guy who comes across as charming yet humble will be the perfect mix.   It can't sound contrived or practiced, that is absolutely key.  It's like watching a guy dance who you can just tell that they practiced in the mirror before they went out to make sure they looked good.  The pick up lines that do work are straightforward, direct comments that come from the situation at hand, not something previously thought of (Cooper et al 2007). 

As for the women and their pick up lines, it was found that those who used direct lines, as in directly asking for a date, hinting at a date, stuff like that.  Don't beat around the bush with men, and we have been told taht for a looong time.  Men needs things laid out for them, nothing hidden or subtexted.  Also, similarly to what women don't like, men do not like sexual humour (your shirt matches my bed spread, basically you belong in my bed - maybe it is too many words for a man to comprehend, especially if they have been drinking a lot) (Wade, Butrie & Hoffman, 2009).  Which makes me wonder why the pick up line of being her baby's daddy worked and if it was because he knew it was a joke.

Finally, what about women during their menstrual cycle?  I am pretty sure that somewhere along my schooling, it was noted that when women are on their period, they are at their most horniest (I don't know what the scholastic way to put that), so does that affect the portrayal of men's pick up lines?  It has been found that women in the fertile stage of the menstrual cycle agreed more favourably to an explicit courtship request.  (Gueguen, 2009).  It is contributed to the fact that women give higher facial attractiveness scores to men's face during their fertial stage.  I guess this could be the woman's version of beer goggles.  And perhaps the reasons behind many of one night stand babies.  Clearly we need friends to be our judgment when we are in our fertile stage. 

So when it is all said and done, there will always be those guys who use the one liners, laugh at themselves for being so funny and then expect you to start salivating at the hope of being with that guy, and there will always be the flip side of the guys, who tells the women what they make, what body type they like, all the places they have travelled, etc etc. As per normal, we need the Goldilocks answer - a little bit of both.  Having a guy with humour is nice, not slap-stick humor or back handed compliments humour however, and having a guy who can sound like a gentleman and treat a woman like a woman is nice as well.  So, if anyone ever meets one of these guys, and if this is what you are wanting, I tell you now, keep that guy - they are few and far between judging from all my associations with men at least out in the night life....

Dorothy, Cinderella, Carrie - all shoe lovers, all part of a girl's life

Who doesn't remember Cinderella and the fact that she would never have met Prince Charming (don't get me started on the fact that he doesn't have a real name) if the Fairy Godmother never gave her those kick ass glass slippers.  Or in newer times, Mary Horowitz from All About Steve and her Red Boots?  I have always wanted a red pair of shoes just like Dorothy and now Mary Horowitz, but then I also think that if I click my heels together three times, I will get transported to Neverland.  And then there is Carrie, the person who probably introduced the world to the brand name Manolo Blahnik.  As I walk to and from work, I see many women wearing heels, some who can't walk in them and others who look like they were born with them and it got me to thinking why the people who can not walk in heels still do so.  So I started to do some research on heels and women and men and I found some interesting pieces of information.

I was so excited at first when I read about a study done in England back in 2010 that says that men don't notice women in heels.  I figured - yay - for the people who wear shoes to attract men, don't waste the money or the pain to try to get noticed.  But then I started reading more, and thanks to my wonderful psych classes, I noticed that the study hasn't been published anywhere.  So I keep hunting on the net, and I find another article that addresses my concern - the study had not been through the peer review process or published, which basically means that this Dr. Neave guy could be a basement dwelling hermit who decided to post something on the Internet and say that it is a brand new study.  So the jury is still out whether or not men actually notice women in heels.

However, there was a study done (which has been published and peer reviewed) that talked about shoes and attraction, and it was found that men thought women were attractive if heels lengthened our legs by a few inches (roughly about 5% longer than our 'normal' leg length).  But there is a line - very long legs were not found as sexy as just a tad longer of legs.  So heels are beneficial, but moderate/wearable heels.  Okay, that I can do and understand. 

But my browsing did not stop there.  I also came across a study where they looked at the physical benefits of high heels for women, since it is a known statement that high heels can contribute to shapely legs, and this study showed that heels improve more than just legs - it can tone a woman's abdomen and pelvic floor (similar to the effects of doing Kegel exercises), which can make sex more enjoyable.  Same as in the last study, this study also mentioned that the heels have to be moderate - no more than about 3 inches high to have a beneficial effect.  Again, that is good news as that is a walkable shoe for most of us girls. 

I, for one, do love heels, but I make sure that I can walk in them, and they are comfy, and depending on where I am/what I am doing.  If I am in for a long night of dancing, I could care less if the guys will look at my feet and scorn at the fact that I am not wearing high enough heels for them.  This is another reason why I would rather be comfy and myself than being in pain and trying to impress people in materialistic ways.  I say that if you are comfy and you exude sexiness in other ways, screw the shoes and laugh at all the women who look absolutely ridiculous stumbling around cause they can't walk and are trying to look sexy.  Note to those girls - you don't look sexy, but keep on wearing those shoes as it allows girls like me to laugh at you and steal all the boys you were trying to get.  Score one for the comfy shoes.