Can Men and Women Be Friends?
Yes.
Let me get that out of the way first. Men and women can absolutely be friends.
But if you spend any time on social media, know of the pervasiveness of porn, or exist within modern hookup culture, you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise. We are constantly sold a narrative that men and women are doomed to have superficial relationships, that every cross-sex friendship is just a waiting room for romance, and that platonic love between opposite sexes is a myth we tell ourselves to feel better.
But consider this: if men and women can be soulmates, if they can love each other so deeply that they become best friends and get married, how could they not also possess the capacity to simply be friends? Just as you have a spectrum of female friends, from casual acquaintances to the best friends you would trust with your life, there is also a spectrum of friendship with the opposite sex. Not every connection has to be romantic. Not every attraction has to be acted upon.
The evolutionary backdrop
Before we go any further, it is worth acknowledging what the science actually says. Because science is fascinating, and it does not tell the simple story that social media would have you believe.
Humans do have a natural proclivity toward same-sex friendships. A large cross-cultural study of approximately 112,000 social media profiles from nine world regions found that women favour dyadic (one-on-one) relationships, while men prefer larger, all-male groups [1]. This pattern was consistent across every culture studied. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that female peer sociality evolved around high-investment, intimate bonds (likely shaped by the demands of reproduction and child-rearing), while male sociality evolved around coalitional support, hunting, and group defence [1] [2].
So yes, there is a natural pull toward bonding with our own sex. But "natural pull" is not the same as "biological impossibility." We also have a natural pull toward eating sugar. That does not mean we cannot choose to eat vegetables.
Cross-sex friendships are not some modern invention that our biology cannot handle. They are, however, more psychologically complex than same-sex friendships. And the research helps explain why.
The attraction asymmetry
One of the most well-known studies on this topic, by evolutionary psychologist April Bleske-Rechek and colleagues, found that men consistently report higher levels of sexual attraction toward their female friends than women do toward their male friends [3]. Men are also more likely to overestimate how attracted their female friends are to them. Women, on the other hand, tend to underestimate how attracted their male friends are to them [3].
This is what researchers call the "attraction asymmetry." It exists. It is real. But here is the part that often gets left out of the conversation: the majority of participants in these studies reported relatively low levels of attraction to their cross-sex friends. Attraction was present, but it was not overwhelming. It was manageable.
What makes it manageable or unmanageable? That is where things get interesting.
Relationship status, satisfaction, and boundaries
Research by Szymkow and Frankowska (2022) found that for women, being in a committed relationship with a partner they find attractive and supportive significantly reduces sexual interest in opposite-sex friends [4]. Relationship satisfaction acts as a natural moderator. When women feel secure, loved, and fulfilled in their partnership, the "mating activation" toward male friends decreases substantially.
For men, interestingly, these moderators had less effect. Men's attraction to female friends remained relatively stable regardless of their own relationship satisfaction [4]. This does not mean men are incapable of platonic friendship. It means they may need to exercise more conscious discipline to maintain boundaries. And that conscious discipline is exactly what separates a friendship from a betrayal.
The Lewis et al. (2012) study from the University of Texas found that relationship status and personality both predicted how much "mating psychology" was activated in opposite-sex friendships [5]. Unmated individuals experienced greater mating activation. People with an "unrestricted" sociosexual orientation (those more inclined toward casual sex) prioritised physical attractiveness in their opposite-sex friends, mirroring what they would look for in a mate [5].
In other words: whether a cross-sex friendship stays platonic depends partly on who you are, what you value, and whether you are in a relationship that fulfills you. Boundaries are not just rules you impose from the outside. They emerge naturally when your internal world is secure.
The discipline problem
Here is where I think the modern world makes things harder than they need to be.
Maintaining a deep, platonic friendship with someone of the opposite sex requires a level of control and discipline that is noticeably lacking in our generation. And this lack of discipline is not entirely our fault. It is being exacerbated by the dopamine-frying algorithms of Instagram and TikTok, which are conditioning our brains to crave short-term gratification at the expense of long-term connection.
Research published in 2025 found that the infinite scrolling interfaces of social media can weaken inhibitory control in the prefrontal cortex, resulting in more impulsive behaviour [6]. When teenagers spend more than three hours per day on social media, they exhibit impaired impulse control mirroring traits observed in behavioural addictions [6]. A meta-analysis found a moderate negative association between self-control and problematic social media use [7]. We are literally training our brains to be worse at self-regulation.
Now apply that to relationships. In a world obsessed with likes, hooks, quick fixes, and miracle pills, we are being trained out of patience. We are surrounded by virtue signalling and people doing everything "for the gram." In this environment, we are inevitably going to have a hard time forming deep, meaningful relationships. Those relationships take effort, dedication, faith, and commitment. They are the antithesis of our current zeitgeist.
Dating apps operate on the exact same dopaminergic premise. Maybe the next person you swipe right on will be the one. Maybe they will be hotter, richer, or funnier. This constant seeking, this perpetual dissatisfaction, makes it incredibly difficult to appreciate the platonic love right in front of us. It makes it hard to sit with a friendship and not wonder "what if."
Add a sprinkle of political and social polarisation, and you have the perfect recipe for believing that men and women could never simply be friends.
What separates us from animals
But what differentiates us from animals is our ability to not act on our impulses.
The philosopher Epicurus famously said: "Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for."
Social media encourages a brain that is always looking for the next high, the next hit. We then look for that same pattern in our real lives, and it seeps into our relationships. We become incapable of being present with what we have. We become incapable of treasuring a friendship for what it is, without needing it to become something else.
John Stuart Mill argued that cognitive and intellectual pleasures are far greater than bodily pleasures. He wrote that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." A deep, intellectual friendship with someone of the opposite sex can offer a profound sense of connection that a fleeting physical encounter simply cannot match. But choosing that higher pleasure requires cerebral effort. It requires the kind of self-awareness that our current culture actively discourages.
There is also something Kantian about this. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative tells us to never treat another person merely as a means to an end, but always as an end in themselves [8]. When we view an opposite-sex friend primarily as a potential sexual conquest, or as a backup option, or as someone to keep around "just in case," we are treating them as a means. We are reducing a full, complex human being to a function they might serve for us. That is not friendship. That is strategy.
Where the lines blur
I want to be honest here, because I do not believe in rules that apply to absolutely everyone.
I do not think men and women can always be friends. I think it depends on the people involved, their maturity, their self-awareness, their relationship status, and their capacity for honesty. Perhaps it becomes easier with age, as our sex drives naturally decrease, or perhaps our self-control simply becomes better honed with experience.
I think it is also highly dependent on personality. The research supports this. People with a more "restricted" sociosexual orientation (those who prefer sex within committed relationships) are less likely to experience ‘mating activation’ toward their opposite-sex friends [5]. People who are satisfied in their current relationships are less likely to feel pulled toward someone else [4].
And yes, it would be incredibly hard to be just friends with someone you are intensely sexually attracted to. I am not going to pretend otherwise. But "hard" is not the same as "impossible." It just takes cerebral effort. It takes choosing the higher pleasure over the lower one. It takes treating the other person as an end, not a means.
The dystopian alternative
A world where women and men cannot be friends sounds almost dystopian to me. It echoes the hollow, hyper-sexualised society of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where deep emotional connections are abolished in favour of surface-level gratification. Where "everyone belongs to everyone else." Where monogamy is taboo and emotional depth is medicated away with soma.
I think our beliefs matter immensely here. Confirmation bias plays a huge role. If you believe men and women cannot be friends, you will interpret every interaction through that lens. You will see sexual tension where there is only intellectual sparring. You will project desire where there is only warmth. And eventually, you will create the very reality you feared.
A tale of caution
I lost someone I loved deeply because the lines were not respected. Because lust won over loyalty. Because pride won over patience. I do not say this to be dramatic. I say it because it is the truth, and because I think it matters.
Men and women can be friends. But it requires something that our generation is rapidly losing: the ability to sit with discomfort, to choose long-term connection over short-term gratification, and to value a person for who they are rather than what they could give us.
Words by Eva Fleischman for The Well Edit.
REFERENCES
[1] David-Barrett, T. et al. (2015). Women Favour Dyadic Relationships, but Men Prefer Clubs: Cross-Cultural Evidence from Social Networking. PLOS ONE. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4361571/
[2] Dunbar, R. I. M. (2024). Sex differences in close friendships and social style. Evolution and Human Behaviour. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513824001077
[3] Bleske-Rechek, A. et al. (2012). Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. URL: https://bleske-rechek.com/April%20Website%20Files/Bleske-Rechek%20et%20al.%202012%20Benefit%20or%20Burden.pdf
[4] Szymkow, A. & Frankowska, N. (2022). Moderators of Sexual Interest in Opposite-sex Friends. Evolutionary Psychology. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10303557/
[5] Lewis, D. M. G. et al. (2012). Friends with benefits II: Mating activation in opposite-sex friendships as a function of sociosexual orientation and relationship status. Personality and Individual Differences. URL: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/09/Friends-with-Benefits-II-final-online.pdf
[6] Satani, A. et al. (2025). Modern Day High: The Neurocognitive Impact of Social Media Usage. PMC. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12329480/
[7] Simsir-Gokalp, Z. (2024). Self-control and Problematic Social Media Use: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health. URL: https://www.jeseh.net/index.php/jeseh/article/view/722
[8] Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Accessible overview via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
The content published by The Well Edit is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended as, and should not be relied upon as, a substitute for professional medical, health, nutritional, legal, or financial advice. While articles may reference insights from qualified practitioners or experts, the views expressed are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Well Edit. Always seek the guidance of a qualified professional before making changes to your diet, lifestyle, supplementation, or healthcare routine.
Use of any information provided is at your own discretion and risk.
