Can We Just Use Friendzone to Describe a Situation, Please?

[Bobic]

What I don't get is why when confronting people "in the friendzone" everyone turns into a raging asshat. These are usually damaged people desperate for affection and feeling down over their loneliness. The best way to explain that they're misunderstanding how relationships work and form is not "You Mysoginist scumbag just in it for the sex, you're a pathetic child". If you actually talk to them with a bit of kindness and respect, you might actually inform them of something, make them feel better, change a mind, improve the world an infinitesimal amount. But no, this is the internet, and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing in the most arrogant, condescending, insulting way possible.

 

[Vegosiux]

But no, this is the internet, and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing in the most arrogant, condescending, insulting way possible.

I am SO going to save this quote. Honestly, with Sturgeon's law in effect, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Still, the remaining 10% is worth fighting for.

 

[Stephen St.]

Because it's in the point that the "friendzone" is only being created by the "friendzone-ee". Read the comic in my original post.

Again, this is the statement I find offensive. It assumes that everyone who uses the word, or finds himself in a situation that can be described by it, is some sort of sorry individual whose shemes of manipulating females haven't worked out and who is now invoking the "friendzone" to rationalize it.

However, being mentally labelled as a "friend" is something that happens a lot to shy people, and can cause great frustration. It is entirely understandable for them to view the situation as something imposed upon them, as they are doing all they can, it just isn't working. Therefore, the term "friendzone" accurately describes the situation from their viewpoint.

I think you missed the part where our friendzoned dudebro explicitly mentions that he's manipulating women purely for his own ulterior motives.

I didn't, I just find the accusation unwarranted, see above.

Look, I know how difficult signals are, heaven knows I get them mixed up plenty of times, but there's meeting someone, getting to know them, and falling in love with them because they are amazing, in which case unrequited love is a *****, but you willingly stick around because they're a great person. And then there's going after girls because you want them purely for romantic and/or sexual exploits and then bitching when *shock and horror* they turn out to not be interested in that.

But often enough, they are not actually an amazing person, you just imagined them that way in your head, and sticking around them being a friend will just hurt you and them both. In which case breaking off the contact is the sensible, albeit hard, choice. It has less to do with "shock and horror" and more with "I am doing everything I can and it still isn't working".

You cannot change the negative connotation to a word just because you feel like it. You might not want it to sound bad, but you're going to have to get used to the fact that other people do think so.

The same goes for the other side. I would really, really like for everyone to just stop using the word 'friendzone' because it makes me feel uncomfortable, but I can't because others don't feel the same way.

The way I see it, it'll take a long time before the word 'Friendzone' is anything other than controversial at best.

The question is how many people need to agree that the word has a mysoginist subtext now before that is being accepted as the primary meaning of that word. Obviously we can agree to not use the word in any given discussion, but at what point can we ask everyone speaking the same language to refrain from using it?

 

[rasputin0009]

If I got bent out of shape every time the kids these days came up with a new slang term, I'd be in a bad way. For gods sake, "pants" now has meaning outside article of clothing.

These kind of words are great identifiers for attitude. The people who use the term friendzone are exactly the sort of people you expect to use it.

Haha. What is "pants" slang for now? That sounds wonderfully hilarious that it'd be used for something else.

 

[Vegosiux]

Haha. What is "pants" slang for now? That sounds wonderfully hilarious that it'd be used for something else.

It's actually been slang for "crap" for quite a while in the British parts. Maybe it's new in USA, but it's definitely not a new use of the word in UK.

 

[the December King]

Also, girls can be friendzoned to. Why does nobody ever specify that?

Due to societal norms/expectations arising from gender roles, women are far less likely to engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications and/or a sense of entitlement to some kind of return on investment.

In my experience, the notion that women 'don't engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications' is a bit off, BloatedGuppy. Women certainly do expect things- we all do, in all social/romantic interactions. Whether they would comment en masse on this, or simillar websites, is less likely, but I suspect that they have their own avenues of discourse.

Women are not above rejection, and dealing with it.

 

[Reikan]

Don't try to be friends with girls you want to have sex with. Then it won't be a problem anymore. You'll never be friendzoned. If she tries to be friends with you instead, just drop the whole shibang and forget about it.

Also "manipulating" women. Give me a break, they grown ass women you honestly think you tricking them into doing something they weren't going to do anyway? Be real.

 

[Ratties]

I am more pissed off by double standards, than the whole friendzone crap. Both sexes do stuff that is very wrong. Yet they think it's okay because they either have a vagina, or they have a penis. Lets talk about that instead.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

In my experience, the notion that women 'don't engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications' is a bit off, BloatedGuppy.

Well I didn't say "don't", I said "are less likely to", and I think I'd feel comfortable standing behind that. Men are very much expected to be the sexual/romantic aggressor, even in today's society where we've been busily deconstructing traditional gender roles for decades (with varying degrees of success).

Women certainly do expect things- we all do, in all social/romantic interactions.

Certainly. I just feel they're LESS likely to make the emotional or financial investments that usually accompany an aggressive courtship attempt, and are thus less likely to be sat around afterwards bemoaning the lack of payoff. Commonplace female romantic complaints trend towards the passive, such as "They never call".

It shouldn't need to be said that I don't ENDORSE the concept of gendered romantic complaints, I'm just observing the fact that this is how they tend to shake out. I don't think it's coincidental that the overwhelmingly endorsed definition of "friend zone" on the urban dictionary, for example, tells the story of a man rejected by a woman.

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

I think you missed the part where our friendzoned dudebro explicitly mentions that he's manipulating women purely for his own ulterior motives.

I didn't, I just find the accusation unwarranted, see above.

It's admirable that you feel offended by this comic's harsh definition of a friendzoned man, because that obviously means you approach women because you're interested in them as a person, rather than a conquest. But I can tell you that there are plenty of guys out there (Even a few acquaintances of mine) who stop being 'friends' with women the moment it becomes clear they're not getting in the sack with them.

Look, I know how difficult signals are, heaven knows I get them mixed up plenty of times, but there's meeting someone, getting to know them, and falling in love with them because they are amazing, in which case unrequited love is a *****, but you willingly stick around because they're a great person. And then there's going after girls because you want them purely for romantic and/or sexual exploits and then bitching when *shock and horror* they turn out to not be interested in that.

But often enough, they are not actually an amazing person, you just imagined them that way in your head, and sticking around them being a friend will just hurt you and them both. In which case breaking off the contact is the sensible, albeit hard, choice. It has less to do with "shock and horror" and more with "I am doing everything I can and it still isn't working"

If you don't think they're an amazing person, then you were never really friends with them in the first place. You were clouded by your hormones. She might want you as a friend, but you don't want her in a non-romantic way? that's not friendship, man. It goes both ways. So in that case, the term 'friendzone' makes no sense.

Walk away, chalk it up to a failed attempt at romance, but don't bring the word friend into it, unless you really, truly saw her as that.

You cannot change the negative connotation to a word just because you feel like it. You might not want it to sound bad, but you're going to have to get used to the fact that other people do think so.

The same goes for the other side. I would really, really like for everyone to just stop using the word 'friendzone' because it makes me feel uncomfortable, but I can't because others don't feel the same way.

The way I see it, it'll take a long time before the word 'Friendzone' is anything other than controversial at best.

The question is how many people need to agree that the word has a mysoginist subtext now before that is being accepted as the primary meaning of that word. Obviously we can agree to not use the word in any given discussion, but at what point can we ask everyone speaking the same language to refrain from using it?

This really isn't a issue of statistics. There is no way of saying when and how something becomes socially acceptable, it just does. That's my point. We can't expect that others see a controversial word as we do. All we can do is discuss its meaning and pick the right situation to use it until the word changes naturally. In the meantime I'll be stuck grinding my teeth and pointing out what the word means to me, while you'll be stuck grinding yours and answering to people who don't like the word.

 

[Nowhere Man]

There's only so many times that people can make "put her in the rape zone" jokes or write lengthy polemics about how those dumb bitches don't know what's good for them and only want to date assholes, before the term starts to smell a bit bad.

Hold up. There's a term called "rape zone"? What. The. Fuck. Ok I admit I'm a little naive. But Damnnnn..
Well that certainly falls into my definition of being a dick.

 

[Vegosiux]

There's only so many times that people can make "put her in the rape zone" jokes or write lengthy polemics about how those dumb bitches don't know what's good for them and only want to date assholes, before the term starts to smell a bit bad.

Hold up. There's a term called "rape zone"? What. The. Fuck. Ok I admit I'm a little naive. But Damnnnn..
Well that certainly falls into my definition of being a dick.

That's Sturgeon's law[footnote]Ninety percent of everything is crap.[/footnote] for you; and it's in full effect on the internet as well. The "rape zone" is just a...thing...some people put up because they think they're crafty and witty. Which they aren't.

I mean, to me, that's no more offensive than "THIS COSPLAY SHALL PROTECT MY VIRGINITY!" meme - but that's only because my reaction to it is "Oh look. Another mentally 12 years old person thinking they're cool by making outrageously exasperating jokes".

But, on the internet, girls are bitches, guys are scumbags, geeks are virgins, cakes don't exist, cats are either cute or evil, dogs shit on everything, and random captions over blurred images are fucking inspirational. It's a melange of sludge and poo gas, and finding a joke done well on the internet is not something that happens every day.

Still, the remaining 10% is worth fighting for.

 

[the December King]

In my experience, the notion that women 'don't engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications' is a bit off, BloatedGuppy.

Well I didn't say "don't", I said "are less likely to", and I think I'd feel comfortable standing behind that. Men are very much expected to be the sexual/romantic aggressor, even in today's society where we've been busily deconstructing traditional gender roles for decades (with varying degrees of success).

Women certainly do expect things- we all do, in all social/romantic interactions.

Certainly. I just feel they're LESS likely to make the emotional or financial investments that usually accompany an aggressive courtship attempt, and are thus less likely to be sat around afterwards bemoaning the lack of payoff. Commonplace female romantic complaints trend towards the passive, such as "They never call".

It shouldn't need to be said that I don't ENDORSE the concept of gendered romantic complaints, I'm just observing the fact that this is how they tend to shake out. I don't think it's coincidental that the overwhelmingly endorsed definition of "friend zone" on the urban dictionary, for example, tells the story of a man rejected by a woman.

Fair enough about my misquote, BloatedGuppy- 'less likely' is a fair assessment. I find it interesting that I was originally going to comment on the role of men as percieved in society, often as the aggressor. When that active pursuit of goals is kaboshed, it's no surprise to me when it manifests as projected frustration, like the friendzone accusation. And as a reflection of this, you have rightly pointed out the more passive 'they never call' complaint, oft put forth by a passive party, and that often, though not exclusively, is a female complaint.

 

[thiosk]

If I got bent out of shape every time the kids these days came up with a new slang term, I'd be in a bad way. For gods sake, "pants" now has meaning outside article of clothing.

These kind of words are great identifiers for attitude. The people who use the term friendzone are exactly the sort of people you expect to use it.

Haha. What is "pants" slang for now? That sounds wonderfully hilarious that it'd be used for something else.

As near as I could tell from the context,

that it'd be used for something else is totally pants.

The opposite usage from the british version what as the other poster noted is akin to crap.

 

[DrOswald]

Also, girls can be friendzoned to. Why does nobody ever specify that?

Due to societal norms/expectations arising from gender roles, women are far less likely to engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications and/or a sense of entitlement to some kind of return on investment.

Ok, I am going to have to flat out disagree with that one. Women get up to just as much courtship bullshit as men. I could tell you plenty of stories about all the insane stuff I have seen women do, especially high school and early college age girls.

One thing on here that I am seeing often is the following situation being described:

Man and woman have a relationship. Man has romantic feelings for the woman, but the woman has no similar feelings for the man. The man therefore decides to end the relationship.

The conclusion often drawn is that the man is a misogynistic pig that only was in it for sex. I do not think that this conclusion is fair. What is wrong with a person seeking a romantic relationship? Why is it wrong for a person to want to end a relationship that is not what they want? Obviously feeling like the woman cheated you out of rightly earned sex is twisted and stupid, but it seems that many people are going past that and saying that if the person is unwilling to continue the relationship on the terms of the party uninterested in romance then they are a bad person.

I find this mode of thinking unfair, immature and, above all, selfish. A relationship needs to go two ways and both people need to be ok with the terms of the relationship. If is pure selfishness to insist that a relationship continue as is when the other person is clearly unhappy with the current state. Change it or end it but don't insist it say the same if the other person is not ok with it.

I have never been "friendzoned" myself, but I have been on the other side twice. In both cases I would have preferred to remain friends. However, it would have been selfish for me to insist that the relationship remain as is and it would have been immature and unreasonable to say that the women were in the wrong when they chose to end our friendship.

 

[Hyper-space]

I also find it baffling how people cry "entitlement" when someone who was romantically rejected decides to take some time for themselves. It reeks of "Oh, they aren't entitled to a relationship they wants with me, but I am entitled to the relationship I want with them! How DARE they not give me that!"

And about your last paragraph; If you were already friends beforehand, it's not entitlement to expect that friendship to continue, imo.[/quote]
Actually, yes it is.

The crux of the argument is that you are never entitled to something, the pursuant is not entitled to romantic interest from their crush and close friend, just as said person is not entitled to have them continue be their friend.

Nobody owes anyone anything in social contexts, its all a matter of mutual agreement.

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

Also, girls can be friendzoned to. Why does nobody ever specify that?

Due to societal norms/expectations arising from gender roles, women are far less likely to engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications and/or a sense of entitlement to some kind of return on investment.

Ok, I am going to have to flat out disagree with that one. Women get up to just as much courtship bullshit as men. I could tell you plenty of stories about all the insane stuff I have seen women do, especially high school and early college age girls.

One thing on here that I am seeing often is the following situation being described:

Man and woman have a relationship. Man has romantic feelings for the woman, but the woman has no similar feelings for the man. The man therefore decides to end the relationship.

The conclusion often drawn is that the man is a misogynistic pig that only was in it for sex. I do not think that this conclusion is fair. What is wrong with a person seeking a romantic relationship? Why is it wrong for a person to want to end a relationship that is not what they want? Obviously feeling like the woman cheated you out of rightly earned sex is twisted and stupid, but it seems that many people are going past that and saying that if the person is unwilling to continue the relationship on the terms of the party uninterested in romance then they are a bad person.

I find this mode of thinking unfair, immature and, above all, selfish. A relationship needs to go two ways and both people need to be ok with the terms of the relationship. If is pure selfishness to insist that a relationship continue as is when the other person is clearly unhappy with the current state. Change it or end it but don't insist it say the same if the other person is not ok with it.

I have never been "friendzoned" myself, but I have been on the other side twice. In both cases I would have preferred to remain friends. It would have been selfish for me to insist that the relationship remain as is and it would have been immature and unreasonable to say that the women were in the wrong when they chose to end our friendship.

The case here is that what you said about relationships needing to go two ways also goes for friendships. It's not a 'real' friendship if one of the two ONLY has romantic feelings. Of course, if you start out as friends, and it does become a real relationship and THEN things turn sour it's a different story altogether, because then both parties have expressed interest, things inevitably changed and you can't just go back to being friends.

The term friendzoned implies that the woman has no interest in a romantic pursuit from the get-go. If the man has those feelings, then that's not his fault . It's not even a problem if they really are friends and he's bummed out, but can accept her feelings on the subject. But if he sticks around because she might eventually throw him a bone since he's a 'friend' and then COMPLAINS when she doesn't...Well, that's nothing short of vile.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ok, I am going to have to flat out disagree with that one. Women get up to just as much courtship bullshit as men. I could tell you plenty of stories about all the insane stuff I have seen women do, especially high school and early college age girls.

Disagreement is, of course, your prerogative, although it would be helpful if you could substantiate your perspective with more than just "I have anecdotal experience that suggests otherwise".

One thing on here that I am seeing often is the following situation being described:

Man and woman have a relationship. Man has romantic feelings for the woman, but the woman has no similar feelings for the man. The man therefore decides to end the relationship.

The conclusion often drawn is that the man is a misogynistic pig that only was in it for sex.

Can you quote someone espousing this? It seems rather like a straw man. I do believe the problematic elements of the term "friend zone" have been described in less polarizing terms than that. Are you certain you're not gravitating to the most outlandish/contentious posts because it reinforces a bias that critics of the term are zealots?

Why is it wrong for a person to want to end a relationship that is not what they want? Obviously feeling like the woman cheated you out of rightly earned sex is twisted and stupid, but it seems that many people are going past that and saying that if the person is unwilling to continue the relationship on the terms of the party uninterested in romance then they are a bad person.

I'm not seeing anyone saying that, although it's possible I'm overlooking a post or two. Can you quote me someone saying a rejected party is obligated to carry on a friendship?

I find this mode of thinking unfair, immature and, above all, selfish.

I would happily agree, I've just never encountered "this mode of thinking". I rather suspect it is a villain you have created with your imagination, or at best a fringe perspective you have projected onto a silent majority.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm not seeing anyone saying that, although it's possible I'm overlooking a post or two. Can you quote me someone saying a rejected party is obligated to carry on a friendship?

I think "shaming them for choosing not to carry on" is quite close enough on that one, actually. Because that's basically what any kind of "obligation" boils down to - "Do this, or bad shit will happen to you". If it's a legal obligation, the bad shit is the Man coming for you, but that's not the only way to enforce obligations.

 

[tautologico]

Let me just put it this way: if I were a woman, I'd stay far, far away from any guy using the word "friendzone" or, worse, "friendzoned" seriously.

Words have baggage and you can't choose for yourself how others will see it. Yeah, maybe the guy talking about friendzone is not a douchebag like many others who use the term, but I wouldn't risk it.

So you can think all is rainbows and use the word all you want, but understand the consequences. Many people will have an immediate reaction of associating you with all the mysoginistic bullshit that is spouted by other guys who use the term friendzone, and if you don't like the baggage just don't use the word.

This is also relevant:
http://vimeo.com/64941331