So I'm pretty onto the whole how men work thing (or so I think) cause frankly I am not a fan of this whole men and women are different species etc etc. Yes, they are socially conditioned differently and yes, sometimes they have different, um, overriding motives. Women are more emotionally strong, men more physically. Women tend to give in, men tend to be aggressive. Its true, and you can't deny it. The faster you accept it, the better you accept the opposite sex, the fact that we need each other and the more chances you have of peacefully co existing with them. But apart from that, we work in the same way. As human beings, we both like being talked to, helping out, being needed, being cared for, hopefully connecting to someone. Essentially, I think that's what humans - male or female - like about other human beings who they count as being close.

Now being close in itself has levels. Which brings me to the point of this blog . Which is where all this well thought out philosophy went down the bleeding laundry chute. And it revolves around one word - "platonic".

Before I ramble. I'll let wikipedia do a little rambling on my behalf (please skip this if not etymologically inclined and skip to next paragraph):

"  The term amor platonicus was coined as early as the 15th century by the Florentine scholar Marsilio Ficino as a synonym for amor socraticus. Platonic love in this original sense of the term is examined in Plato's dialogue the Symposium, which has as its topic the subject of love or Eros generally. Of particular importance there are the ideas attributed to the prophetess Diotima, which present love as a means of ascent to contemplation of the Divine. For Diotima, and for Plato generally, the most correct use of love of other human beings is to direct ones mind to love of Divinity. In short, with genuine Platonic love, the beautiful or lovely other person inspires the mind and the soul and directs ones attention to spiritual things. One proceeds from recognition on another's beauty, to appreciation of Beauty as it exists apart from any individual, to consideration of Divinity, the source of Beauty, to love of Divinity. The spiritual ideas of Platonic love -- as well as the fundamental spiritual emphasis of all of Plato's writings -- has been de-emphasised over the last two centuries.

Some modern (and ancient) writers overemphasize Socrates' affectionate feelings towards male pupils in Plato's dialogues. Actually, Plato emphasized chastity in the case of homoerotic attraction, but suggested that recognition of beauty in a person of the same sex may still serve the aim of inspiration. Indeed, in some ways homoerotic attraction may have served Plato's illustrative purposes better than heterosexual love, since in the latter case issues of procreation complicate the picture.

The English term dates back as far as Sir William Davenant's Platonic Lovers (1636). It is derived from the concept in Plato's Symposium of the love of the idea of good which lies at the root of all virtue and truth. For a brief period, Platonic love was a fashionable subject at the English royal court, especially in the circle around Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of King Charles I. Platonic love was the theme of some of the courtly masques performed in the Caroline era—though the fashion soon waned under pressures of social and political change."

My question is not - "Can there be platonic relationships?" There are, there can. Its hard, and a pre-requisite is that one of the two are true -

1. Both members are already unavailable by choice (not looking for someone, still jaded over last relationship , already truly devoted to someone else who makes them happy

2. One of them considers the other to be "not their type" (they have higher or maybe different standards from what they look for)

3. One of them is gay.

If none of these are true, if two truly available people connect on the same level and feel that connection equally, even if its only emotionally, is it really possible to stay platonic. And I'm sorry but even if one person starts to have feelings, as unrequited or well hidden they may be (and there are people who go on like this for years), then it is not platonic. Because there is a motive other than friendship.

But how do you differentiate between genuinely feeling for that person and feeling for that person only because he/she is that close to you and just happen to belong to the opposite sex? What if you'd never feel for that person if you guys weren't that close? Is that just your mind playing social stereotypes (how can we be so close and not be...) or is that true crushing?

I would especially like to figure this out because I know that at this point in my life, I'm likely to crush a lot. As such, that knowledge itself helps to put a lid on your thoughts running away with you and to make sure your head rules your heart, at least till your heart has decided to stabilize itself. But its really a terrible game for your brain to play on you. And it really has a huge potential for disaster.

Luckily, I haven't had it play havoc with me yet. I have some fantastic male friends who mean the world to me, but who no matter how long you kept us on a marooned island, it'd never go anywhere else.

But I don't doubt my brain will play tricks the moment I decide to go out and re-start the whole being social thing which I had given up for the last 2-3 months (I am such a recluse right now I'm shocking myself).

What I'd love to know is, where does a guy draw the line? Is it that what starts as friendship must always stay there? Similarly, is it really possible for a girl who you loved to move into friend zone? And would they decide to spill their guts or just continue with the semi-dating semi-friends thing? What signals do they give out to let the girl know its changed?

(Girls hide this stuff really well till the guy gives out definitive feelers, and even then they might not do anything about it.  What I'd like is a guy's perspective).

Sigh...just when I thought I had all this figured out.