Men vs. Women: FIIIIIGHT!

(with apologies to Street Fighter 2 for the SNES)

So...

It's easy and pat and occasionally funny to riff on the old saying: "Women. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em." Common variations include, but are not limited to the following:

• "Women. Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em."
• "Women. Can't live with 'em."
• "Women. Can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts."

That last one, of course, was courtesy of one Norm Peterson, a character on Cheers, talking about his beloved-yet-never-seen wife, Vera. Quite a man, that Mr. Peterson.

I will say this: I am extremely fortunate to have a good number of close female friends. They're fantastic and I love 'em to bits, and I really do consider myself lucky to have their perspective and influence percolating into my brain. I get the impression that a lot of guys don't have that, and I really must say they're missing out.

Here's the deal.

It is entirely possible, and one might even say probable, that a logical, sane, nice, funny, personable, attractive man, and a logical, sane, nice, funny, personable, attractive woman, who are both single and are both open to the idea of romance, can click very well on a "friends" level, but never successfully progress to the "romance" level.

This is frustrating as hell. I know I've hit that glass ceiling many times, and the top of my head is starting to get pretty tender from all that bruising.

Allow me to point out a few things, then.

Traditionally, men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. Like it or not, that's the overwhelming leitmotif of our society, as progressive and enlightened and egalitarian as you might want to be. Personally, I guess I'm fine with that; there are just some things that dudes have to do. We don't have the babies, so I suppose this is a pretty fair trade-off -- so long as one gender or another isn't looked-down-upon, in the acknowledgement in the different roles we play.

(In case you can't tell, this is all told from a heterosexist perspective. I have no goddamn clue what goes on in all the various LGBTQ scenarios, which I imagine involves a whole new set of rulebooks. More power to ya.)

The scene: A and B are friends; one is female, one is male.

A: "Hey, so, um... you like spending time together, right?"
B: "Sure do. You're a great pal."
A: "Aw, thanks -- you too."
B: "What are you getting at, though?"
A: "Well, you know, I couldn't help but wonder if it'd be fun to start going a little past 'friends' and into the 'romance' side of things."
B: "Gee, I'd like to, and you're swell and all, but I don't want to chance losing our friendship, in case the romance thing doesn't work out."

Quick quiz, hotshot: which person is which gender? I'll let you think about it.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Look, both you and I know that A is the guy, and B is the girl, because it's asinine to reverse the gender roles. Read it again, with A as the girl and B as the guy -- it doesn't make sense, does it? That would, in all likelihood, never happen -- or, if it did, well then, you'd better buy a fucking lottery ticket, because today's your lucky day.

But, let's unpack B's last statement -- specifically, the "losing our friendship" idea. I get the feeling that's a pretty common sentiment amongst women, at least on the surface. And it might be a defence mechanism which should really say "I'm not physically attracted to you," but that would lead us down the rabbit-hole of people not saying what they mean, but focus, man, focus.

(Ehhh... because I must, at this juncture... a Public Service Announcement: please say what you god damn mean. It makes life a hell of a lot easier for everyone.)

I personally know that ex-romantic-ventures don't necessarily have to end a friendship, as a couple of the aforementioned female friends I have fall into that exact category. It's not weird, it's not uncomfortable; we just happen to have, at some point in history, had some very intimate physical contact, and I've seen the little birthmark on her upper, inner thigh. (It's cute, and shaped like Don Knotts' head.) If you can't deal with being friends with a guy who you've porked in the past, but who you otherwise enjoy being around and whatnot, well then, that sounds like something you've gotta work out on your own, old chum.

But now we come back to the logical female + logical male conundrum. I, as a (usually-)logical male, naturally wonder, if I'm good friends with a woman who I enjoy being around and whatnot... well, how about trying out romance?

The possible downside is that there's a chance she won't want to be friends afterwards (but, of course, there's a chance she might). I suppose there's a chance that the guy will want to terminate the friendship, but c'mon. And, naturally, there's the risk in any new romance that crazy shit's gonna go down, but that's not over-and-above the risk in any possible romantic endeavour.

The possible upside, of course, is romance with someone you already know and enjoy being around. That seems like a pretty big upside to me -- you're not starting with a total stranger, so you already sorta know their deal.

I feel a 2x2 matrix coming on.

	Pro	Con
Not trying romance	- no boats rocked - status quo, friendship definitely intact	- unrealized potential - one or more parties' continual frustration
Trying romance	- possible fruitful relationship - you already sorta know what you're getting into	- possible discomfort afterwards if things don't work out

I dunno, man. I'm probably skewing things to fit my perspective here but, I mean, come on.

That's why I don't understand why women are so quick to shoot down possible romantic endeavours with guys they already know and trust... and are also quick to complain that there aren't any good guys left out there, and that things are hopeless.

Meanwhile, you're having dinner with one right now, and hope is staring you right in the face, sipping a beer, asking how your day was.