#ALSO THIS IS OBVS ONLY WOTHIN THE SCOPE OF THE UNIT I PERSONALLY HAVE OPINIONS THAT R MORE SOLID HEHE

[yakultii]

Can a friendship also include sexual intimacy ? - a sociological perspective

Friendship is often considered the freest of all human associations due to its dynamic and informal nature (Blatterer, 2016, p. 62). Unlike kinship and romantic relationships, friendship is not structured by institutional norms and systems (Byron, 2016, p. 488). Instead, it is fundamentally characterised by voluntary trust, equality, reciprocity and justice (Blatterer, 2016, p. 66). While varying degrees, most friendships entail some level of intimacy (Blatterer, 2016, p. 64). Giddens (1993, p. 94) defines intimacy as not being absorbed by the other but knowing his or her characteristics and making one’s own available. Sexual intimacy introduces a physical dimension to this connection, related to sexual practices and relations (Byron, 2016, p. 486). While non-sexual friendships may develop into sexual relationships, this raises the question of whether they are still considered friendships and socially acceptable within society. Using the sociological imagination (Willis, 2011, p. 72), this essay will argue that whether sexual intimacy can be included in a friendship is dependent on historical, cultural, and structural norms. This essay will begin by comparing past and present time periods to argue that historical context differently shapes societal acceptance of sexual intimacy in friendships. This will be followed by examining religious and secular cultures’ values of sex and friendship, to contend that cultural norms play a crucial role in varying social conceptions of the relationship between sexual intimacy and friendship. Next, the essay will highlight the patriarchal norms of compulsive heterosexuality and gender stereotyping, in contrast to the ways political institutions challenge these norms and facilitate diverse relationships through endorsing queer culture, to illustrate social structures’ role in shaping differing societal attitudes toward sexual intimacy within a friendship. Finally, this essay draws the conclusion that whether a friendship can also include sexual intimacy varies, as it is contingent on social context.

When comparing the Victorian age with the contemporary social media era, it is evident that meanings of both friendship and sex is constructed differently over different periods of history, influencing differing societal conceptions of the relationship between friendship and sexual intimacy. During as the Victorian era, there were more traditional understandings of friendship and less liberating sexual pursuits. Traditional friendships, now commonly distinguished as “close” or “true” friendships (Blatterer, 2016, p. 65), were largely understood in terms of platonic love. Male friendships were typically confined to marginal activities such as sports, leisure and shared participation in war, while female friendships were constructed around fulfilling the personal and social needs that were unmet within their marriages (Giddens, 1993, p. 43). Therefore, the traditional role of friendship was relatively predefined and exclusionary of sexual intimacy. This aligns with the context of sexual pursuits during this time, as many women entered marriage with little or no knowledge of sex, based on the fact sexual activity was reserved for after marriage (Giddens, 1993, p. 24). On this basis, it is likely that during this historical period, there was a clear distinction between friendships and sexual life, illustrating a general lack of social acceptance toward friendship also including sexual intimacy.

On the other hand, in contemporary society, and the age of social media, friendship semantics are multifaceted, while sexual pursuits are more frequently online and liberal (Dempsey & Lindsay, 2014, p.74). The modern age retains the traditional meanings of a friendship, while broadening its dimensions to adapt to the emergence of new kinds of relationships stemming from social media and sexual freedoms. For instance, social media connections, like on Facebook, are understood as “friends”, despite possibly having never met in person (Blatterer, 2016, p. 63-5). While this kind of friendship may be distinguishable from traditional friendships due to lacking emotional depth (Blatterer, 2016, p. 64), it is arguably still considered a friendship based on its foundational characteristics of trust and reciprocity (Blatterer, 2016, p. 66), in its mutual agreement of connection in the online space. When then considering the context of modern online sexual pursuits, it is not unusual for social media platforms to be used as a tool to freely explore sexual opportunities (Hobbs et al., 2017, p. 274). Intimate sexual connections are generally socially accepted within these kinds of friendships, and based on sexual freedoms (Dempsey & Lindsay, 2014, p.74), do not necessarily require development into a romantic relationship and, therefore arguably remain a friendship. This illustrates that based on the flexible and expansive semantics of friendship within the context of sexual liberation and social media during this period, it would be considered socially acceptable for a friendship to also include sexual intimacy. Therefore, based on differing conceptions of friendship and sex over time, whether a friendship can include sexual intimacy varies according to historical context.

When examining religious and secular cultures it is evident that cultural norms surrounding sex and friendship play a significant role in influencing varying social conceptions of the relationship between sexual intimacy and friendship. In many religious cultures, premarital sex is frowned upon, as sex is expected to develop out of romantic love after marriage (Dempsey & Lindsay, 2016, p.38). Therefore, sexual intimacy cannot be included in a friendship, unless using “friendship” as a metaphor for the intimacy of one’s marriage (Blatterer, 2016, p.65). However, even this understanding is unlikely based on religious conceptions of friendship. A religious understanding of friendship is an equally inclusive relationship to all human beings, therefore, engaging in sexual intimacy conflicts with its definition, through forming exclusivity (Rusu, 2018, p.6-7). Consequently, if a relationship were to become sexually intimate, it would no longer be considered a friendship according to religious cultural norms. Therefore, a friendship cannot include sexual intimacy within some religious cultures.

In contrast, secular societies with individualistic cultural norms, are accepting toward sexual choice, including sexual partnership (Blatterer, 2016, p.62). The normalisation of both premarital and casual sex in secular societies reflects the belief that sexual activities are not confined to marriage or romantic relationships (Dempsey & Lindsay, 2014, p.74). Instead, the view of personal desire as a legitimate ground for sexual choice, liberating individuals from strict rules and routines, and allowing for the pursuit of sexual pleasure without religious knowledge is encouraged (Rusu, 2018, p.8). This detachment from romantic exclusivity facilitates the opportunity to engage in sexual intimacy with friends. A common concept of erotic friendship is “friends with benefits”, which aims to address each other’s sexual needs through physical connectivity, rather than the emotional connection of a romantic relationship (Blatterer, 2016, p.72). Additionally, due to the cultural normalisation of sexual expression, another form of sexual intimacy in friendship is through sharing intimate details of each other’s sexual lives (Byron, 2016, p.491). Therefore, based on differing cultural values, while including intimacy within a friendship can be normalised in multiple forms in secular society, it cannot be within some religious cultures, demonstrating that whether a friendship can also include sexual intimacy depends upon cultural norms.

Social structures play a significant role in shaping differing societal attitudes toward whether sexual intimacy can exist within a friendship. This is evident when examining the patriarchal norms of compulsive heterosexuality and gender stereotypes, in contrast to the ways political institutions challenge such norms and facilitate diverse relationships through their support of queer culture. Patriarchy is a social system in which men dominate society (Pilcher & Whelehan, 2017, p. 100). This dominance is sustained through performances of hegemonic masculinity and heteronormativity (Lynch, 2008, p. 411). A key manifestation of hegemonic masculinity is compulsive heterosexuality, where men assert their masculinity by sexualising and controlling women’s bodies (Pascoe, 2007, p. 86). This behaviour fosters the belief that men cannot be friends with women without thinking of them sexually (Flood, 2008, p. 345), which reinforces stereotypes about gendered relationships. These stereotypes categorise homosocial pairs as ‘friendship’ and heterosocial pairs as ‘love’ (Blatterer, 2016, p. 69). Consequently, platonic friendships between men and women are viewed as rare (Flood, 2008, p. 342), and if sexual intimacy occurs, it is likely not considered a friendship. Therefore, patriarchy restricts the nature of both friendship and sexual intimacy, leading those adhering to these norms to view sexual intimacy in a friendship, particularly among heterosexual friends, as generally incompatible.

Conversely, despite persisting patriarchal influence, political institutions in many societies actively challenge patriarchal stereotypes by endorsing acceptance of queer culture, which helps foster an environment where diverse relationship dynamics can flourish. This is evident from the legalisation of same-sex marriage in many countries (Dempsey & Lindsay, 2014, p.1), which not only undermines the traditional necessity of heterosexual relationships but also directly challenges the gender stereotypes that rigidly categorise homosocial relationships as platonic and heterosexual relationships as inherently romantic (Blatterer, 2016, p. 69). Political and institutional support of queer culture and relationships dismantles these binary distinctions, thereby creating space for new and diverse kinds of relationships. Queer culture itself, particularly among lesbians exemplifies this fluidity. Research has found that queer individuals often navigate and redefine the boundaries between friendship and sexual intimacy. For example, within lesbian communities, relationships often transition fluidly from friendship to sexual partnership, and even back to friendship once the sexual relationship ends (Dempsey & Lindsay, 2014, p.44). This flexibility in relationship roles reflects a broader acceptance of sexual intimacy within friendships, challenging traditional patriarchal norms that confine sexual relationships to romantic contexts. Thus, political institutions’ support for queer culture facilitates the reimagining of relationships, promoting a greater social acceptance of sexual intimacy within friendships in some societies. Therefore, comparing the social influences of patriarchy and political endorsement of queer culture reveals that attitudes toward whether friendships can also include sexual intimacy vary according to the prevailing social structures in society.

In conclusion, the sociological analysis presented in this essay demonstrates that the inclusion of sexual intimacy within a friendship is profoundly shaped by historical, cultural, and structural factors. By comparing past and present historical periods, the essay reveals how evolving conceptions of friendship and sexuality over time influence societal acceptance of sexual intimacy in friendships. Additionally, the examination of religious and secular cultural norms illustrates the significant role that cultural values play in shaping differing views on the relationship between sexual intimacy and friendship. Further, the exploration of patriarchy and the political endorsement of queer culture uncovers how prevailing social structures impact diverse attitudes toward sexual intimacy within friendships. Consequently, it is evident that whether a friendship can also include sexual intimacy varies, as it is contingent on social context.