This 1993 candid is worth a thousand words, but not the thousand about which most people think. Few people know the backstory to this nostalgic visual that we all love—the first public snapshot of John and Carolyn while they were both watching the NYC Marathon. It was during that week that her quasi boyfriend at the time, model hunk Michael Bergen, caught the photo in the headlines and confronted her about it. For the longest time, her ongoing response was the nonchalant “Oh, he’s just a friend, Michael.” That Carolyn was either the most intelligent calculating woman out there or the most ignorant folly of a case, the jury is still out.
Unbeknownst to Carolyn, she coined the 21st century euphemism “Oh we’re just hanging out” and “Yea, we’re talking”. Ummm, right, over your cologne-scented pillows, girl. If you know anything about Carolyn Bessette—the tall cut-throat blonde who nabbed smoldering American prince of the 90s JFK Jr—she was a low-key man eater, in my opinion. She never wanted to define anything. She hung with the boys and she did it really well. She was unconventionally gorgeous and whip smart which added to the male intrigue. One thing that set her apart from most females is that she didn’t play hard to get, she just intrinsically was hard to get. I learned of this other angle to her life after reading The Other Man in which Michael Bergman chronicled their love story. Page 21 and 23 sums up our girl—that kind of girl everyone knows at least one in their life:
PAGE 21:
“What happened? I asked?
“Nothing,” she said. “We went out a couple of times.”
“Dinner?”
“Dinner,” she repeated. “And once or twice to Martha’s Vineyard.”
“You went to Martha’s Vineyard with John Kennedy Jr.?” I wasn't exactly thrilled by the idea. Not that I suffer from retroactive jealousy, but I was nuts about Carolyn and didn’t want anything to go wrong.
We were at the entrance to the subway now. She put her hand on my arm, as if to reassure me. “It was nothing, Michael.”
“Nothing,” I said, trying to control my voice. "You don’t go away for a weekend with a guy and say it’s nothing.”
“It really was nothing,” she said, with a note of irritation now. “I went as a friend.”
“What does that mean, friend?” It occurred to me that she had never once admitted to any kind of serious liaison with any man. Not Jason. Not JFK Jr. Not the hockey player she had dated in college. It was almost as if she didn't want to aknowledge that she had any sexual history at all. She wanted to be a virgin for me. Every other man had just been a friend.
Carolyn liked to talk about the future even less than she liked talking about the past, if that was remotely possible. Even the near term was too complicated for her. She refused to make a plan. It always depended on how things went at work, how much she got down, whether she had to go to that boring thing at the Met.
But I didn’t mind. I was idiotically happy. As far as I was concerned, it was nothing short of a miracle that I had this amazing woman in my life.
What other man has been in Michael’s place?
I have long been puzzled, yet very intrigued, by the concept of male-female friendships—the PLATONIC-I-don’t-expect-anything-from-you definition of friendship. This stems from me being a natural Girl’s Girl: I have a ton of girl friends. I’m incapable of “rollin’ with the homies” like some girls, while culture preemptively makes those girls the cool ones to aspire to, right? Nevermind that they are the exceptions to successful male-female dynamics outside of conventional romantic coupledom. I’ve realized we as culture have this hasty sophomoric ideal “Well, if they can do it I can, too!” to make certain exceptions the rule when it comes to what some individuals can fancifully get away with that the masses can’t. Despite all of the progress we’ve made, I believe the western first world countries are in a massive state of denial. And it’s not just with this area of life but with so many others. In a relativistic “my truth” world—not to mention the extreme issues of no defining terms on what a woman is and redefinition of marriage—I’m not surprised that we are still keeping up with these minor charades of male-female close knit friendships, much stemming from the 1960’s Free Love movement (reason #3 below).
I started this blog 7 months ago and have been procrastinating on finishing it because there is so much nuance to this subject. For instance, I do have some amazing male friendships in my life, BUT to be politically correct I’d like to call them acquaintances—compared to the scale of friendship I can have with my female friends. Because I think having a platonic male friend has never and will never be the same as having a female friend. Think more boundaries. It’s a different dynamic and we need to respect that dynamic—-unlike what Carolyn and other women like her have done to murk those waters.
I’ve talked to “Guy’s Girl’s” regarding this topic and here is the proverbial response I have gotten over the years: “I just get along better with guys.” Well, to that I say: I get along really well with men, too. I have lively intelligent conversations, I love a man’s self deprecation and different perspective on things that I can’t glean from a woman. I love hanging out in groups with them BUT there is a subtle tension nobody in that camp seems to acknowledge when it comes to platonic conversations with the opposite sex that is ampliflied even more when it’s one on one. With romance it’s a different dynamic: both parties subconsciously welcome that tension but if one is not romantically interested in the other, then what is the point of expending that sexual tension on them? One will either get screwed, literally (see reason #5, below) or one will be disappointed because nothing is coming from the interactions (reason #3).
And I’m not just talking about in person—this could be over the phone too, because that is still a one-on-one intimate conversation. Neverless, I do have long conversations with people in general and one time I spent 3 hours on the phone with one of my male friends! When I got off the phone I thought to myself, “damn that was special, but rare. I’m not doing this every day or even every week with you—things are going to get awkward!” You see, we don’t experience the same type of vulnerability within our species as we do outside of our species. I think of girls being my same species while guys are not. Now that’s quiet hyperbolic because I know what you are thinking, “Whitney we are still the same species!” Yea, and men are from Mars and women are from Venus! Look, in the midst of our woke non-binary, feminist leaning culture I promote, for the sake of arguments like these, using more hyperbole to counteract the blur into which society is trying to meld us.
This subject of male-female friendship reminds me of a cute baby elephant in the room, one that we don’t want to disrupt because it looks like it’s having so much fun over there in the corner (such like the Carlolyn excerpts I will use throughout this blog). But, it so often ends up being a conundrum too many of us humans find ourselves in, especially in this modern age. I’ll attempt to address that elephant—which may ruffle some tomboy’s overalls—and you’ll find out why I don’t go out of my way to have male friendships. Let me explain 5 reasons why, coming from a female’s perspective and my personal experience sprinkled in…
1. BASIC INSTINCT: the primal sexual tension factor is a real thing.
It took me a while to comprehend my feelings as a legitimate concept to talk about—maybe because I thought I was the only one out there thinking this way and I felt weird? After years of experiencing this, I will bring it to the surface. It’s hard to form intimacy (the cerebral kind) with a male friend if I’m only going to remain friends with him: if I don’t feel or foresee any romance in the future then I don’t care to get closer physically or mentally. My brain gives me this red light. I feel emotionally constipated, like I can’t fully be myself because if I was I would be defaulting to flirtatious behavior (see Reason #4) that could “lead the guy on” to a direction not in the cards for us. It’s emotional and intellectual energy better spent on my girlfriends, geriatric male mentors and such. There only seems to be sexual tension with men who are in my mating bracket—imagine that! They could be the most upstanding man and it has nothing to do with trusting them around me (like they will make a move or something), it has to do with not wanting to face sexual tension within myself for a man I have no chemistry/compatability/longterm romance for. And I’m sure several of them have felt the same…..This could be explored further in the TEDtalk by evolutionary pscyhologist David Buss who delivers a very uncomfortable yet hilarious truth about men and women:
2. BRAVE NEW WORLD: It’s a newer frame of mind
When it’s your blood relations/ close kin (father, brother, male relatives) that sexual tension seems non existent. Our psychology subconsciously recognizes this to keep things from getting complicated. And boy oh boy do things get complicated outside of those relationships here with American culture. Carolyn, unbeknownst to her, was a one of many poster children for the “I’m not a regular girl I’m a cool girl” who had friends with benefits, something born out of the 60s—so one could say the sexual revolution had a lot to do with this new frame of mind. That’s why some cultures employ strict boundaries. Just look at Muslim culture, the extreme opposite end of the spectrum regarding female to male social ethics here in America. You are not even allowed to talk to a man unless he is your father, brother or husband. Good grief that’s archaic! But, for the sake of my argument, it says something about using ancient wisdom with our opposite-sex interactions and being discretionary about getting involved with opposite parties, unless for very intentional reasons. Former vice president Pence would know. Remember when everyone made fun of him when he declared no one-one meetings with the opposite sex out of respect for his marriage (and keeping him out of temptation waters)? Trump and Clinton should have taken a page from his book.
3. DAMN IF YOU DO, DAMN IF YOU DON’T: it’s awkward regardless of your relationship status
I think most men can empathize with me: no single self-respecting guy is going to continue communicating (on a deep level—the key to solid friendships which we are talking about here) with a women if she is taken (that’s how the classic affair is born), nor is he going to waste his time being friend zoned by her if she is single. It’s such a beta move for a woman or a man to waste their time in the friend zone with the opposite sex. Like the Michael, Carolyn and JFKjr love triangle, I believe the live-here-in-the-moment type of girls thrive in the male/female friendship department because they are either A) naive and not self aware or B) they just have a unique emotional bandwidth that makes room for male interactions that they don’t intend to become romantic. Nonetheless, whether knowingly or unknowingly, they crave male attention more than me. I’ve only ever wanted one special man’s attention in my life, to know him deeply at every level. Do I sound boring because I lack this insatiable thirst to half-ass communicate with men all the time? No, I’m just an incredibly fulfilled person and don’t have the time to entertaining the advances of various men—I only enjoy entertaining the ones that I see as husband material where I can have free range communication with him in with romance involved. Period. So, I’m not going to confuse myself and a guy who I’m not meant to be with. Thinking on that, I could never be on the Bachelorette—I would have nervous breakdown with all that attention around me. Its just too much! Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to see the male-female dynamic through rose-colored-lenses. Those women are so non chalant, taking things in stride—never mind the wake of madness and frustration they leave for the men in their path. “Oh I had no idea he actually had feelings for me! I thought our connection was mutual, all of a sudden he got weird.” blah blah blah…. Miss. Me. With. That.
4. THE BANE OF SURFACE TALK: small talk is a disease to me
Small talk is the safest yet most boring—hence, why it’s hard to have a solid friendship with a dude. The tension builds because you want to talk something beyond that. Flirting is inevitable and/or deep talks about life which both are a form of vulnerability that forms intimacy. There are some exceptions in my experience and in other women’s but it does not change the rule: having a formal platonic friendship with a straight man is an oxymoron.
5. DEVOLVING SEXUAL MORES: Living in a culture of denial
The most obvious takeaway is this. FWB’s is a unique modern age phenomenon thats roots go back to the 60’s Sexual Revolution. Everybody knows someone who slept with their guy friend and are “totally still cool.” But they are not cool, they are either in denial or a devolving as a human. It will eventually lead to friends with benefits and that is the tackiest low-grade ‘friendship” out there—another way to cheapen the act of sex, reflective of hookup culture. Sorry, girls, call it a double standard but we are incapable of behaving like men with their capacity for compartimentalizing. Stop paying attention to what they are doing and take a deep look at yourselves. We are not using are personal agency as much as we think we are: We are using it to do what we want, not what we ought. Now the latter sounds more empowering because it alludes to exercising our self control, the road less traveled yet so much more soul redeeming than the crowded path of today…..
Conclusion:
I’m not advocating for less friendships between potential romantic partners—no, that kind of friendship to slowly grow into something more intimate is a great foundation. I’m also not disparaging your current platonic friendships you do have with the opposite sex. This article is not about the exceptions in life, it’s about the rules which I have made objective arguments for above. Most of the time, having an indifferent opinion on a guy or girl but still keeping them in your life and communicating with them like they are something is going to lead to resentment down the line. Save your time, energy and sanity—accept the rule for what it is and don’t play yourself.
This photo also has a similar backstory, which I found in Michael Bergen’s writing. Several months later after the NYC marathon, Carolyn again dubbed John as “just a friend” because she cringed at putting labels on anything serious. Meanwhile Michael was waiting in the wings, an idiot in love as he puts it several times throughout the book. What I gathered from the book was that Carolyn never was entirely exclusive to John Jr during their courtship—let alone in their marriage. Just because she had this refined sensibility with her fashion and conservative looks did not mean she was stable emotionally. She had this innate ability to reel a man in and reveal her authentic self while still keeping him at arms length. She kind of reminds me of Bruce Springsteen’s “Secret Garden” song. The lyrics give me chills every time: "…She’ll let you come just far enough, so you know she’s really there. She’ll look at you and smile and her eyes will say she’s got a secret garden, where everything you want, where everything you need will always stay a million miles away.” That’s what she did with Michael and John. That’s what made her a catch, one that could never actually be caught. She brought her past with her into the sacred convenant of marriage and even justified her liasons with Michael Bergen by telling him that she thought John was having an affair, too.
