‘Sorry Emily Ratajkowski, but having ‘zero straight men in your life’ is actually your loss’

“I still like men,” she said, before adding: “I just have zero straight men in my life, unless they’re a romantic interest. In the hierarchy of needs, that’s at the top of the pyramid, which is nice. [Men are] pleasure and fun, but not a part of my core. The rest of my life is community with other women and queer people, and being a mum.”

Look, I get it. As a woman who has been constantly berated on the internet for her ‘overtly sexual nature’, and labelled as a sex symbol by every mainstream media outlet under the sun, it makes sense for EmRata to want to distance herself from the male gaze; to not let men define her.

It’s why she wrote her 2021 book, My Body, a deeply personal investigation into both the commodification of the female form and sexuality, but also her own nuanced experience of how she — and her physical body — are perceived, scrutinised, and commented on in the public eye.

But to totally remove herself from any interaction with a straight male — “unless they’re a romantic interest” — is to lose out on so much that there is to gain from these relationships. The joy that a platonic male friend can bring: the alternate view point, the differing experiences of the world, and the idea that you can connect with someone of another gender in a genuinely fulfilling (but non-sexual) way.

Of course, I’m sure she’s getting this from the queer community, and from other women. I have no doubt she is surrounded by interesting, kind, and funny people — and these friendships are important. And beautiful! Fulfilling! Amazing!

But to dismiss a whole category of potential connections based on their gender seems reductive, and, quite frankly, a loss. Some of my best friends are male. My school friends, Ed and Ben, who I’ve known for almost 15 years; my husband’s best men, Dan and Gaz.

The idea of distancing myself from them based on their gender diminishes the importance of connection; of finding another personality you properly gel with — and also pushes the outdated relic that men and women can’t ‘just’ be friends.

There’s also the suggestion that men, for EmRata, are just “pleasure and fun”, and serve no purpose beyond serving her needs. Sexual gratification, sure, but emotional connection, a shared sense of humour, or gaining advice over a shared bowl of chips? Nah, she’s good.

This narrative seeks to create further divide between the genders at a time when we need more open communication than ever. Recent data from King’s College London found that 57% of Gen Z (aged 13 to 28) men believe women’s rights have gone so far that men are now actively being discriminated against (with 36% of Gen Z women agreeing with that statement too).

Surely we should be encouraging young people to talk to each other; to gain an emotional understanding of differing gender’s points of view, and not further push this dynamic of division? I’d argue the men I know who nurture their female friendships make for better partners, because of their increased understanding. Who wouldn’t want more of that in the world?

In a sense, I get what Ratajkowksi is saying: female and queer friendships are joyful, supportive, and filled with love. But there’s no reason why relationships with men shouldn’t be like this too (and why we can’t have both.) Maybe she just hasn’t met my friends Ed and Ben yet.