Amelia Earhart - theories on what happened

Amelia Earhart, known for disappearing without at a trace, was a wonderful woman, but what happened to her? Time to dive into all the theories on her disappearance.

Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan

Amelia Earhart has done many, many great things in her lifetime. She supported equal rights, earned the US Distinguished Flying Cross for solo flight across the Atlantic, and wrote best sellers on her flying. She was a significant figure in women's history and will continue to be so.

Her Disappearance

In 1937 Earhart and Fred Noonan were flying around the world. They were going to land at Howland Island, an uninhabited island. They never arrived. There are theories that suggest they had to emergency land on what is now Gardner Island, and died there. 

What supports this is the human remains found on Gardner Island. These were found beside a campfire, a woman's shoe, and a navigational device. There have been studies done on her measurements and height to support that it could be Earhart, with the fact that the navigational sextant would have matched her backup navigational device. 

Taken By the Enemy

Les Kinney/ US National Archives

There is also another theory, that she was killed by the Japanese. This is based on the photograph showing the Japanese towing a damaged plane, with a woman resembling Earhart on the dock. There is a whole documentary on this theory, and it actually makes sense. It would suggest she died a prisoner of the Japanese. The picture above is the infamous photograph that is referenced. Locals in the documentary reference a kind woman and man killed by the Japanese, and the woman looked like Amelia Earhart. They were allegedly shot and buried. This was gathered from the island locals on the prison camp island that they were allegedly sent to.

This is a theory that is debated highly, because if the photograph is from before 1937 she is not even on the ocean, and the Japanese are not in sight. In other points, you find she and Fred have new clothes. The Japanese are unlikely to be that kind. 

Is Any Of This True?

There are no records to prove the Japanese prison camp story true, and the first is also mostly circumstantial, so we don't know that these are false or true. There were records lost during the war, and with that fact under our belts, it is entirely possible she was a prisoner of war. It is also equally possible she had to emergency land and the pair died marooned on an island. The evidence is a little thin on both sides, but I'll let you be the judge. 

sources:
https://www.ameliaearhart.com/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40515754

Pictures:
The Guardian
Pinterest

007 part 3 - books and movies

We know Ian Fleming wrote the first James Bond novels, but who continued the tradition? We have several authors who have, and you may be surprised to hear that the movies are based on more than Fleming's writing. Let's compare the books to the movies!

When it comes to 007's authors we have Ian Fleming, John Gardner, Sebastian Faulks, Jeffrey Deaver, Kingsley Amis, Charlie Higson, Raymond Benson, William Boyd, Steve Cole, Anthony Horowitz,  and Christopher Wood. Some only wrote one novel, while others wrote several.

It all started with Casino Royale and Ian Fleming. I have talked about Ian Fleming in 007 part 2, so we're talking about James Bond's portrayal in the books, then comparing it to the movies today.

The books

James Bond is 6 feet with greyish-blue eyes and black hair, according to the books. He is a widower, his deceased wife being Teresa Draco. His parents are deceased, as well, and they are Andrew and Monique Delacroix Bond. He knows martial arts, too, using it to knock out or kill on occasion. 

In this Bond novel M questions whether
Bond is too damaged to stay in the field.

He was orphaned at age 11 after his parents had a climbing accident in Aiguilles Rouges. One of the books (spoiler alert) may suggest that Bond's mother was a spy herself. Bond was a Navy Commander by the end of the war, thus he is called Commander Bond in multiple movies and books. 

He gets extremely banged up through the whole series, and in some books M questioned whether he should retire. He is sent on breaks between some books. He has a run-in with SMERSH, an organization with a name that means 'death to spies'. They marked his hand in Casino Royale. M insisted that he have skin grafted over it, so they wouldn't keep coming after him upon seeing his mark. 

Bond's love life is still very much active in the books, but he isn't obsessed with it. He is more about the mission itself, oftentimes, and he ends up with women once a book. Usually, they are part of the mission itself and he is protective of them. I would describe him as a gentleman that puts work first but is perfectly willing to love afterward, depending on which author you are reading. They are mostly consistent with this, but some give him more emotion than others. They do give him emotions and humanize him.

The movies

We see Bond of the movies as a smooth ladies man that gets laid ever film, all while working dangerous missions and being shown around the villain's entire estate before being nearly killed, then saving the woman and himself by the seat of his pants.  Each actor tends to play it differently, though, so let's break this down to the actor portrayals. 

Sean Connery

Sean Connery -  We see Bond here as kind of intense, with a love for women. He even acts slightly sexist in some of the movies (though Connery will tell you he hated playing this character and he is not anything like him). In Goldfinger we see Bond force himself on Pussy Galore in a barn, a scene that still makes me uncomfortable to this day.

Roger Moore - Bond here is a little less sexist with more wit and humor. He's more British-classy, I'd say, with some respect for women and maybe a few moments of immature humor. He can be tough, though, and as an actor, Moore was doing some of his own stunts. An example of Bond's witty portrayal is when Jaws, a man with metal teeth, shows his teeth and Bond grins back. 

Pierce Brosnan - This portrayal is suave Bond, with emotions. It is harder to describe his style, but I'd say he isn't overly sexist, and can even be swayed by women. This Bond has women listed as a definite weakness. He is flirtatious in nature, much like the rest of the portrayals. (Brosnan had to get out of his Remington Steele contract to play Bond, which is why Timothy Dalton got two movies in the first place.) He is a bit of a combination between Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton (in my opinion).

Timothy Dalton

Timothy Dalton - This is one of the most emotional Bonds. He is the nicest to the women, even being unable to shoot a female sniper in Living Daylights, saying she wasn't a professional sniper. He appears more romantic. He is a bit intense, too, but in a different mission-focused way. He also finds himself in revenge situations because he is acknowledged as having emotion. He even cries as Bond once in a film. Dalton also did most of his own stunts. 

Daniel Craig - This one is the epitome of intense. He, too, has emotions. He reveals this and Bond's psychological complexity in his portrayal. He can show Bond's dark emotional side. I would not call this one overly romantic in nature. He's a little more realistic about how damaged Bond may actually be. He also did something unique. Quantum of Solace doesn't have a love scene. He is all action and intensity.

George Lazenby - He did one Bond film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I have never seen it and it did not get a good review. He is considered the worst Bond of the series by some. He tried to portray a vulnerable, emotional Bond and did not make a hit. He broke the fourth wall during the film, but apparently did a bare-knuckle fight scene that was decently good, just before he broke the fourth wall. 

Is one better than the other?

Anyone who has read the books will know that some of the movies have taken scenes from one book to use them in a completely different plotline. One scene in License To Kill and one scene in For Your Eyes Only are actually from the book "Live and Let Die".  That is not the only time we have seen a Bond book chopped up in pieces for the sake of a movie, but I think you understand my point. The books are never going to be exactly the same as the films. Whether you prefer the books to the movies, the movies to the books, or just like both is up to you. It seems there is plenty of Bond to go around and he is very much still alive.

In case you're curious about what scenes I'm referring to in License To Kill and For Your Eyes Only I will show you in the pictures below. 

Melina Havelock and Bond get dragged on the coral - For Your Eyes Only

Felix Leiter is lowered into a shark pit to be maimed and left out for Bond - License To Kill

Sources:

https://www.writeups.org/james-bond-novels-profile/

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/celebrating-timothy-daltons-james-bond/

https://www.theperspective.com/debates/entertainment/battle-bonds-connery-craig/

https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/bond-actors-ranking/

Pictures:

Project Nerd

James Bond Wiki

Wikipedia

Heritage Auctions

CNet

007 part 2 - was Ian Fleming a real spy?

We know Ian Fleming wrote the first James Bond books. Each one has been made into a movie by now. There was a rumor going around that he was a spy himself. Was it true? Let's find out!

Spoiler alert, it is true! He was an undercover British agent in WWII. Without boring you with his life previous to being a spy, here's the basic rundown on his life before the spy-hood. He was well educated, his father died fighting in France, and he became an assistant-editor with Reuters News Service. He proved to be a wonderful writer. With that known, I'm diving into his life as a spy.

Spy-hood in WWII

Vice Admiral John Godfrey

After Reuters News Service he went to the London Times. Through his coverage of various trials he became known in the right places. He was recruited into Naval Intelligence to be the assistant of Admiral John Godfrey, who headed Naval Intelligence. He went from Lieutenant to Commander in rank. He was given a glowing review by the Admiral. 

He soon joined them full time, assigned to section 17. This was where messages were handled from  the Operational Intelligence Center (OIC). Confidential missions and messages happened here. From here he was reassigned to Liason between NID (Naval Intelligence Department) and SIS (see 007 part one for more information on this), the Political Warfare Executive, and JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee). He also hired members for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.

What did he do when the war progressed? Glad you asked! He kept track of German warships in the North Sea and North Atlantic through NID. Fleming and his teacher Sydney Cotton often discussed untested gadgets for intelligence gathering. 

What About the Missions?

The Danube River

Fleming was made liaison to MI(R) and was part of subversive operations on behalf of the British intelligence. What they used to do was lease a bunch of barges on the Danube, making them unavailable to Germans, as well as other operational tricks. The people he worked with were a bit dirty in the espionage way. It flopped, leaving a few operatives fleeing from a stranded barge with Nazis in hot pursuit, but it was not for lack of trying. 

Throughout his career he became friends with men who may have modeled for 007 without realizing it. What did he do, other than the failed Danube operation? He helped pave the bridge between British and American Intelligence. Add to that, that he was not a conventional man. He took a few seized Germans out to eat, got them drunk, and got confidential information from a drunk U-Boat Commander.  He also ran an operation named Operation Golden Eye, meant to sabotage and open up communication links in case Germany would invade Spain. It was never necessary, fortunately. 

Fleming was part of one of the most successful deception operations, one that fooled Germans into thinking the 1943 Europe invasion was taking place in the Balkans instead of Sicily. They placed a body of a drowned Naval officer along the Spanish coast, like a plane had crashed, and had false documents on the body. It was a huge success. He was even part of D-Day by assembling a large military library to prepare for it. We're talking a lot of maps and reports! 

Fleming's Red Indians

Fleming's "Red Indians"

Fleming commanded a covert group called "Number 30 Assault Unit" (AU-30), aka "Red Indians". They operated on a secret base outside of London. They were civilian, "dirty dozen" type men that may have questionable character. They were part of D-Day and secured U-Boat information. They once captured 300 Germans, their radar system, and destroyed docked U-Boats. 

Their best work was transporting records to the German Navy Warfare Science Department, which housed all records of German Navy in World War I. This was Fleming's job, and he took it very seriously. Some or most of that information was probably gathered by his Red Indians. 

His Retirement

After being discharged he became a foreign manager of a newspaper chain. He traveled, met Jacque Cousteau, met JFK, and had a home built in the Caribbean. He called that home Goldeneye. He enjoyed his island home and wrote his novels. He married Ann Rothermere. Unfortunately, he drank, smoked, and didn't take care of himself while living at Goldeneye. He died of a heart condition at age 56. 

Fleming's Villa Goldeneye in Jamaica

Pictures:

inWrite

Imperial War Museum

Pinterest

Worthing Herald

Trip Advisor

Sources:

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2018/01/25/ian-fleming-the-fact-behind-the-fiction-of-james-bond/

007 part 1 - what is a 00 agent?

Here I start part one of the 007 series of blogs. There will be three of them, so stay tuned for the other two. First, we're looking at what being a 00 agent actually means.

00 agents are actually real in the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). The head is known by C or CSS (Chief of Secret Service), not M, but there is a secret service. The agents are typically foreign nationals, but are seen as traitors or moles to their own governments. Most operate under false identities while overseas as diplomats. Diplomats can't be arrested or prosecuted, so it is a good cover. Espionage is their job. Some were actually traitors at one point, in some cases.

London Diplomatic Event

Unlike Bond, they are known as SIS agents, not 00. The only trait shared with our famous 007 is the ability to drink and function at embassy events. It is a desk job with occasional overseas trips. Sometimes they are just going overseas to get or deliver bribe money, and rumors of making up fake agents to pocket bribe money are out there. The only real risk is being expelled by the local government. Diplomatic passports make it easy to walk away from a bad situation. The living-on-the -seat-of-your-pants missions aren't actually realistic.

Can you be a 00?

What of the title of 00? If you join after a normal career you can't, but we know bond was an ex-commander in the British Navy. What he does is more armed forces. He would be in Special Forces (SF) with an obscure group that does reconnaissance, which is more like what Bond does. Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SSR) do have cars with gadgets, drive fast, do combat with concealed weapons, and shoot guns. They are plainclothes, too, so this is more like what Bond would be doing. SSR recruited men and women, so we would see a female agent here.

SF works with Ministry of Defence. SIS and SSR are not discussed openly. SIS and SSR does special operations of somewhat military nature, too, so it is actually possible that Bond would be working for the SIS through SSR. To make a long story short, he'd have to be in SSR to do what the books and movies say he does.

MI5 and MI6

There is a difference between these two, and they are SIS. They may still be around, partially. MI5 is for intelligence inside the UK and was originally formed to identify and counteract German spies in 1909. MI6 counters threats from abroad and fights terrorism, among other things. MI, military intelligence, were discontinued and absorbed into other organizations. MI5 is technically the Secret Service now, and that was merged with Scotland Yard. MI6 fell out of disuse, but was called Foreign Intelligence Service, Secret Service, and Special Intelligence Service in its time. 

Pictures:

TV Tropes

London Diplomatic Association
Military.com
Ozel Buro

Sources:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/05/james_bond_007_career_path/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5736946/difference-mi5-mi6-spy-agencies-about/

Human interaction- a basic need

With all this social distancing it is worth discussing the value of social interaction. Do we need other people? Introverted, extroverted, or ambiverted, you will go a little insane if you don't have human interaction.

Loneliness, surprisingly, doesn't lie with the number of friends we have, but how many people we personally connect with. If you don't trust someone, don't feel socially supported, or there is some emotional conflict in the air it may cause loneliness in a crowd of people.

With all the quarantining in Ohio, it is also worth discussing what can happen when loneliness becomes chronic. It can trigger mental illness spirals, as well as cause heart damage, poor sleep, poor appetite, substance abuse, depression, and suicidal thoughts and tendencies. This is loneliness at its worst. With the distance between us and our loved ones, we should make sure we are reaching out to them. Emotional connection is at the core of who we are because God created us to be in community with Him and our fellow man and womankind. Let's be kind to each other. The deeper our social relationships, the longer our lives can be. It really does make a difference to have an emotional connection with others.

Our Devices and Loneliness

We live in an age of technology, and it is everywhere! Lose your internet for a while and you immediately find out the apps on your phone, tablets, and laptops that only work on wifi. You quickly learn how much you actually depend on the internet. I depend on it to post this blog, and I lost internet for a while. With it, I lost online communication and had to depend on a phone with data for a few weeks to even work from home. Let's be real here - you can't escape a screen! 

Eric Pickersgill edited the smartphones out of this picture.

But does online communication actually equal the face-to-face and touch affection we need?  We stare at our phones and ignore the world around us, stunting physical and emotional interaction without realizing we are starving ourselves of deeper friendships. Our Zoom and Skype interactions may be connecting us from a distance, but they may be creating more social distance than we know. We aren't getting the same energy from that interaction through a screen that we would in greeting them at their apartment for a meal and movie. .

Our technology may actually dull our sense of social cues, in some ways, because we aren't reading as much body language and facial expressions. When you dull that sense of in-person interaction you can find yourself unsatisfied with your relationships. Hearing voices, watching reactions, and paying attention to the world around you is infinitely more rewarding than a tiny device that steals your time from you in the form of social media. I'm not saying social media doesn't have its uses, but it does steal time from us when we scroll out of boredom. 

Using our devices to connect with others is a great thing to do, I promise, but let's keep in perspective that this little device or large device sitting in your lap is an object that is not human interaction. It is close, but not quite. With all the Zoom meetings we are forced into having because we are in quarantine, it reminds us just how nice meeting our coworkers in person really is, and how much human affection actually boosts our mood. 

Human Affection

Human affection is a need we have that can't be satisfied from six feet away. It is a human connection on varying levels that connects us by emotion. The five love languages are an example of the types of this. Hugs, kisses, holding hands, touch, and cuddling are things that we actually need as humans to feel secure and wanted by those around us, especially romantically. As risky as affection can be (it leaves us vulnerable) we need it. 

Lack of affection can result in stress, anxiety, depression, and unhappiness all around. Those starved of it can't form healthy relationships easily. The cure isn't to text your friends - it is to find them and hug them! In all seriousness, lack of affection is called "skin hunger" by some because we need to be touched. With the six-feet-away social distance, we may be starving others of what they need. Yes, Covid19 is serious, but human affection is a basic need. We can't deny we need touch. Whether you are hugging your cat or your brother, it is a basic need.


I will say that we should follow CDC guidelines. This blog is not saying we should outright ignore them. I am simply saying that we need the human interaction and should remember technology won't replace that need. Call your friends and hear their voices.








Sources:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-nourishment/201612/why-we-need-each-other
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/well/live/having-friends-is-good-for-you.html
https://medium.com/the-ascent/the-importance-of-human-interaction-in-the-age-of-technology-795f89c5310a
https://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/why-we-have-need-affection/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/affectionado/201308/what-lack-affection-can-do-you

Pictures:
Christian Connection Blog
Quartz - Eric Pickersgill photographer
The Medium

linear vs nonlinear thinking - an overview

There are plenty of nonlinear thinkers out there, but what does nonlinear thinking actually look like? I'm here to explain that today.

Let's start with the basics. Nonlinear thinking is thinking that doesn't happen in a straight line. These peoples' thoughts go all different directions and they may come across as unconventional. It can cause difficulty in expressing thoughts clearly because their thoughts are abstract. One can confuse linear thinkers by assuming they understand this type of thinking.

Linear thinking is exactly what it sounds like, the opposite of what I just described. It is thinking in a straight thought process with no trailing off, and it is far easier to explain your thoughts and ideas in this way of thinking. These people may not quite understand the nonlinear thinkers because of the difference in thought process.

Which Am I?

If you focus on one thing at a time chances are high that you are a linear thinker. If your thoughts don't follow a straight line of reasoning you are probably a nonlinear thinker. Women are usually pegged as nonlinear thinkers, but I know several men who work this way, too. It may not necessarily have to do with gender. 

Still not sure? Let me give you some indicators on nonlinear thinkers. Do you have seemingly unrelated thoughts that somehow connect to each other? If so, and you've drawn conclusions that others couldn't, you are definitely nonlinear. This is typical of creative types, like designers and people in the arts. I know a lot of writers who don't think in linear fashion. I am one of them. Creativity is highly associated with this. You can problem-solve from multiple starting points if you are primarily nonlinear.

Linear thinking, on the other hand, is the idea that one thought leads to another, then another follows, and so on. The thoughts don't jump around and come back. It is one path with no separate paths connected. They may not see subtle conclusions as well as the nonlinear type. This type is typical of scientists and analytical types. Logic is strong here. You won't go off-topic often in this thinking process.

Neither type is superior to the other, it is important to note. We all function differently because God made us diverse in thought process. What should be noted is that some can do a bit of both. You can use both creative and logical functions. It is a good skill to be able to do so, in fact, so stretch yourself and explore both functions if you can.

Creativity Vs. Logic

Logic, the idea that something can be proven with solid evidence, and creativity, the free flow of ideas sound like opposites, but are they?

Let's break down what these two concepts are, starting with logic. Logic is based on evidence, one conclusion at a time. For example, based on conclusion x we can reason that y is connected to z. Logic follows a straight line. Computers use logic to function and the sciences use this method to prove their conclusions. It is also incredibly useful in debate and arguments to prove your point, whether you are correct or not.

Creativity is a free flow of ideas and is far more abstract. From this, you get the creative expression that doesn't follow one line, but instead branches out all different directions, connecting ideas that aren't logically connected. Any of the arts,whether performing, written, or visual, use this concept. Psychologically, you are making connections to different parts of your brain by thinking creatively. Emotions that are difficult to express can be expressed through creativity. Strangely, con artists use this type of thinking to con others and it can be bright or dark in use.

Both these concepts can be used for good or bad. Used together it can lead to a lot of great, wonderful ideas that work and function well. If you are a linear thinker, primarily, you will tend toward logical thought, and nonlinear thinkers are the opposite. Often, we use both, but tend toward one or the other. It wouldn't hurt to use both.

Sources:

https://thinkshiftinc.com/blog/are-you-a-linear-or-non-linear-thinker

https://chuckslamp.com/index.php/2009/04/11/non-linearthinking/

https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/creativity

pictures:
evolkov.net

Cross Sex friendship and Our Society

Can men and women just be friends? Can you have close friends of the opposite sex? Let's dive into that.

Men and women getting close to each other, through conversation and physical touch (includes hugs), is often associated with attraction, flirting, and sexual relationships. It is often ignored by some that having a close friendship with the opposite sex is beneficial and can include some nonsexual affection (depending on personal lines), while others enjoy the benefits often. How far you go with the affection can lead to close friendships being more than friends, but that depends highly on the two people in the friendship.

Affection is something that can come in many different forms, physically and emotionally. We hug, kiss on the cheek (very common in Europe), high five, hold hands, lean on each other....etc. We compliment each other, reach out to help, and care for those around us. Close bonds create some form of affection. This means we can bond with the opposite sex without wanting a sexual relationship with them. That doesn't mean we don't admire them as a whole, but that we don't seek a sexual relationship with them. We seek them out for their personality and their support, rather than sex.

Why Is It Important?

Men and women work with each other every single day of our lives, somewhere in the world, unless the world comes to a crawl, of course (like now). Yet, here we are, commonly associating a guy and gal sitting together talking deeply about life as romance (assuming they are together) every time we see it. Yes, they may be a couple in some cases, but I have so many close male friends that I bond emotionally with, but don't seek for relationship reasons. We can have family-like relationships with our opposite sex and not end up dating them.

All of us have male and female friends, on average, and you don't end up dating all of them. How does that happen? Lines, attraction biology, and personal unspoken rules. We all have different boundaries with different people based on our upbringing, personality, and mutual rules. It takes maturity to maintain this type of friendship. Some we are attracted to and others not, but even if you are attracted to them, we have the self-control to not act on it. It is healthy to talk it out, so that is okay. Healthier to get it out, than keep it in and cause difficult situations. This type of friendship takes maturity to keep healthy.

I'll use an anonymous friend of mine for this example (let's call him Chad, for anonymity sake). Chad has no attraction to me, but we had several classes. I had no attraction to Chad. He knew I had someone, and he had someone. Because of this we got along well and became close friends through getting to know each other at college. In his case, we would hug. He gave me a ride to and from some class locations when we did community service for a capstone class. We never crossed the line of friendship at any point. While he isn't the most affectionate example of my cross-sex friendships, this is an example of pure friendship with the opposite sex. It is possible to not cross that line just by being friends.

Another example includes Ray (based on real person I know). Ray has several friends of the opposite sex, mostly friends with the opposite sex. He is affectionate with almost all of them, if he trusts them and likes them. His female friends can fall asleep on his shoulder, will let him do the same on theirs, hold hands with him, and he has allowed a few to kiss him on the cheek.  He is also not seeking a relationship with a woman. This is an example of friendship, not romance, even if he is affectionate with these women.

Benefits

Every human being needs some form of affection and comfort. Nonsexual affection is included in this. An arm around the shoulder for comfort is one of those kinds of touch. Hugs, (if you are in Europe) a kiss on both cheeks in greeting, a pat on the back, and other touches like that give that kind of comfort. Cross-sex friendships allow all of it, depending on personal mutual boundaries.

What it comes down to is setting boundaries and communication. There are some men I know who allow more physical non-sexual affection, while others flinch and step back at it. Our comfort zones are all different, but the benefits of a healthy cross-sex friendship are the life sharing and perspective shifts that allow us to grow. I personally think this should be taught early on, with guidance, but it often isn't. Women are taught touching men is often sexual, and vice versa, so we get awkwardness around the opposite sex as a result, when it doesn't have to be that way. In our society that is beginning to change, but older generations sometimes teach that men and women can't just be friends.

Having opposite sex friends close also gives you more insight into how they function, thus giving you a way to connect better with anyone you do want to date. They can give you advice on what to do and what not to do in dating situations, as well. You get help and support from them. In the case of me, I have male friends that I can take to conventions with me, should my fiance not be able to go, thus giving me the physical appearance of being occupied. In short, they serve as protection against lurkers while giving me a fun companion to travel with. 

Why Say It's Impossible?

I know that some people, mostly older generations, don't affirm this type of friendship. It has to do with how you are raised. Also, it is more of an interpersonal issue if you can't be friends with the opposite sex. It can cause problems later if you can't. Some believe this friendship being too close can lead to romance, personal issues, and jealousy. Age and maturity are also a factor here. Immature people who are unhealthy in relationships may confirm exactly what those who don't believe it works think. 

Yes, let's address the elephant in the blog post. It can lead to romance and break a friendship if handled wrong. It can also lead people to the loves of their lives, so a cross-sex friendship may be improved by romance in some cases. Marriage and dating do involve being friends at the base, so I don't consider the latter failure at all. In the unhealthy side of things, jealousy can crop up when the lines are poorly drawn. Boundaries poorly done are never okay anywhere. I'll say it again; it takes maturity to keep a healthy cross-sex friendship. 

Another caution here is if one side of the friendship doesn't want to be just friends. Be careful in this territory. If they can't just be friends it is perfectly acceptable to end the friendship, rather than keep a soap opera going in your personal life. Please be mature and be nice in this case. If you can agree to be just friends and maintain that like an adult, you have no issues here. In the case of someone who can't, it is dangerous to your emotional health and theirs. Let them move on. 

Our Society

My personal soapbox is that our society doesn't often guide our younger generations into learning how to have opposite-sex friendships because of the idea that men and women can't have a nonsexual relationship. That is a complete myth and should be busted. We work with both genders all the time in our adult life. It does not help us to make girls and boys sit on separate sides of the room and not teach them how to interact nonsexually with the other side. That is crippling us, not helping us, and what would help is gentle guidance from a young age, while playing and working in mixed groups. It starts with our grade school children and the concepts we teach them. Our society should be teaching how to interact in ways that make us better adults, and saying cross-sex friendship is impossible is making it hard to work with the opposite sex when we grow older. 

To be fair to our society, it is mostly the older generation that is uncomfortable with this concept due to what they have been taught. The older generations have been taught that men and women are to interact to primarily date and marry in many cases. It depends on how someone was raised when it comes to what they believe about opposite-sex friendships, so depending on where you are raised, what culture, and how you were taught, you may be for it or believe it is only a means to an end (dating, sex, and marriage). Younger generations are becoming more and more okay with this concept.  It is an individual decision, and some have more close friends from the opposite sex than their own sex, myself included.

I would like to thank several people on my facebook page for giving their opinions and thoughts on this topic. I sincerely appreciate the input. I would like to thank the following friends: Alex Keller, DJ Brown, Noah Abel, Jessica Nicole, Michelle Hines, Patrick Mallette, Hannah Podratz, Zoe Shepherd, and Courtney Bates. If I missed anyone, I apologize. I am glad you all responded to my status!



Sources:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/marriagetoday/2019/03/the-importance-of-non-sexual-affection/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/domestic-intelligence/200811/do-cross-gender-friendships-always-have-sexual-element

Pictures:
PARs Blog
Paging Dr. Nerdlove
Live About
Psychology Today