When Harry Met Sally: Who Wins the Argument?

The “When Harry Met Sally Argument” resurfaced in Sunday’s (April 8, 2012) NY Times piece by William Deresiewicz: “A Man. A Woman. Just friends?” In the movie, Harry and Sally famously argue about whether a man and a woman can be good friends, "just friends," without romantic/sexual complications. Deresiewic argues that change in our society has proven Sally right: women having gained equal status in the workplace, platonic friendship between men and women has become commonplace, even as our culture continues to have difficulty understanding relationships not rooted in sex or blood.

I am unconvinced by the article. In the movie, Harry (Billy Crystal) decisively wins the argument as he and Sally (Meg Ryan) fall happily in love. In the narrow, Catholic circles in which I travel, close, long-term friendship between a man and a woman is virtually unknown. When asked about the possibility of such a friendship, the standard, liberal knee-jerk reply is: “Of course it is possible, why not?” But on further questioning, most admit that they have not developed anything remotely approaching a close, long-term friendship with a person of the other sex. There appears to be a tacit, unacknowledged taboo against such relationships.

Deresiewicz identified two of the three biggest impediments to such a relationship: sex and family. I would add gender difference. The most obvious problem is the presence or possibility of sexual and romantic attraction and all the tension, complexity and vulnerability that that brings. The second is family. Most of us in my ethnic tribe are rooted in our families: spouse and children along with family of origin. And so, there is the delicate question: how would my "good-friend" fit into my family picture? What would my spouse, our children and extended family make of this friendship? Last, but not least, is the politically incorrect fact of gender difference. Men and women think, feel, and act differently. When we are not attracting, delighting and charming each other, we are often annoying, boring, confusing offending, and even repulsing one another. Classically, friendship is based on shared interests and concerns; it implies a degree of equality, mutuality and similarity. So, men may golf together and women shop together. But more virile men will have a narrow range of interests to share with more feminine woman.

With Harry, I see that such friendships are rare, difficult, and precarious…not normal or widespread. But then there are exceptions.

- Single, divorced and widowed people, less deeply enmeshed in family, have the desire, capacity, time and energy to develop such friendships.

- People who are less attracted to and attractive to the opposite sex might more easily develop such friendships. Eleanor Roosevelt was probably blessed with more male “just friends” than was Marilyn Monroe.

- Less-masculinized men and less-feminized women will be more easily drawn into such relationships than those with more gender-extreme interests and characteristics. Homosexual men are more comfortable with such frienships than are heterosexuals.

- Within the workplace, as Deresiewicz implies, a rich range of friendships seem to flourish. These can entail a fascinating and enriching mutuality in respect, interest and sexual chemistry. But they tend not to transcend work into recreational companionship and long-term loyalty.

- Older, mature people, near or at retirement age, are more adept in such friendships. Sexual tension is diminished, but has not disappeared: there is greater possibility of interest and fascination without compulsion and intoxication. The more mature masculine and feminine psyches are more deeply and contemplatively appreciative of each other. Annoyance and repulsion have been replaced by a gentle, mellow acceptance. What is lost in passion and desire is gained in serenity.

- Spiritual relationships, rooted in faith, love of Christ and his Church, and a shared mission are another matter entirely. Our Catholic tradition honors a number of such relationships. Most recently, renowned theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar enjoyed a fruitful spiritual partnership with the mystic Adrienne von Speyr. He considered their work to be one: his own theology was deeply impacted by her experiences as these latter were made intelligible to her by his immense, profound theological erudition. On a more humble level, such partnership in prayer and ministry between men and women in the Church is far from unusual.

- Most significantly in a Catholic context, the virginal life opens the way to safe, close “just friend” relationships. The priest who is solid and confident in his celibacy…the consecrated religious who exudes joy in her spousal intimacy…the chaste brother who exemplifies the tranquility of fraternal, evangelical friendship…all of these invite trust and foster steadiness and loyalty. The same can be said for the husband or wife who is clear and strong in conjugal identity: these also provide a certainty, a safety, a reliability that can nourish intimate yet reverent long-term relationships. And so, a true friend to a married man can only be a friend to his marriage, his identity as husband and father, and his mission that flows from that.

And so: Can a man and a woman be “just friends” in a close, long-term relationship? The first answer is No: not normally and not easily; not where the explosive dynamics of sexual attraction and gender dissonance are operative; not outside of an emotional maturity and mellowness normally not available before late adulthood; not where marriage and family are foundational and sacrosanct; not outside of a culture of robust chastity, virginal and conjugal.

And yet, it does happen. When it does it is a surprise and a delight, a miracle, a gift from heaven, a charism, a privileged visitation of tender, abiding, sober love.

Female Masochism... or Bridal Surrender?

In yesterday's NY Times, the reliably perceptive Maureen Dowd describes, in "She's Fit to Be Tied," a current cultural trend, women's fascination with female masochism in the fiction of E L James: "...bondage-themed romanticas that have evoked hysteria, whipping up a frenzy with the housewives of Long Island and rippling out from there..." In this narrative, the female "Submissive" is to sign a contract so that the male "Dominant may flog, spank, whip or corporally punish the Submissive as he sees fit, for purposes of discipline, for his own personal enjoyment or for any other reason, which he is not obliged to provide." Dowd approvingly quotes a Harvard-educated female dominatrix who sees that "most women are sexually submissive" and that the bondage theme is especially appealing for women today because "after a long day of managing employees, making all the decisions and looking after children, a woman might be exhausted about being in charge and long to surrender control."

That is one smart dominatrix! Women "long to surrender control." The underlying problem is that women are trying to be in control!!!!

Women are stressed, depleted, exhausted, depressed, and angry...because they are trying to be in control. No wonder that they enjoy the fantasy of being a passive victim!

Wasn't that the mistake of Eve, who distrusted her heavenly Father as well as her spousal partner and decided to take control of the situation herself?

Aren't men generally absent, inattentive, irresponsible and under-involved?

Don't women want to be themselves strong and assertive within a relationship in which they are cherished and respected by a strong-but-gentle-and-reliable man?

Doesn't authentically virile love entail a strength infused with a tenderness in which he receives the preciousness of his bride even as he gives himself, assertively and confidently, to her? Is not a wholesome feminine love a receptivity rooted in confidence, autonomy and integrity?

Is not receptivity itself, in absolute contrast with passivity, an act, an exercise of freedom, a perfection, even within God as the Son receives from the Father?

Women are taking control because men are absent as husbands and fathers. But the foundational root of the masculinity crisis is a privation in filiality: we men are not sons of the Father! We are not in receptive, trusting, obedient communion with God. We are not properly mentored and supported by fathers and father-figures and our brothers. We can't give what we don't have and we don't have because we don't receive and we don't receive because we don't trust.

The primary need, for men and women alike, (although differently), is to surrender and allow ourselves to be loved by God. We need to surrender control. We need childlike trust and obedience. We men and women alike will exercise our masculine and feminine power only within an antecedent and coincident feminine, childlike surrender. Male sadism (violence to the other) and female masochism (violence to self) are both perversions of the primal Mysteries: filial trust in paternal-and-maternal love and bridal surrender to the Bridegroom.