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

[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

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Again though, can you show me some examples of people shaming the jilted party for not happily remaining friends? With the ominous specter of "bad things will happen otherwise"? Because in all honesty I think that's a tonal misread of the vast majority of the backlash against the nice guy/friend zone expressions.

 

[Aris Khandr]

We already have a term for unrequited love. Unrequited love. Why do we need another one that means the exact same thing?

 

[DrOswald]

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".

I can't point to scientific peer reviewed studies from reputable journals on the crazy shit people get up to while courting if that is what you are asking. All I can go off of is what I have observed. However, I would be willing to check out any such studies you could point me to that prove your stance.

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?

"I only dislike the people that suddenly completely distance themselves from said friend after they were rejected. It's like they felt entitled to have those feelings reciprocated or only became friends with the other person for possibility of sex in the future."

"Because it's not very far from "they were willing to be friends, until they were told there wouldn't be any fucking"."

Both from the first half of the first page of this thread. And there have been many threads with many pages about this subject and every time I enter one of those threads I see it.

Notice I didn't say always, I didn't say usually, I said "often". I am not saying that everyone or even most are saying or thinking this, only that it is happening too often in my opinion.

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?

Using the word obligated? no. However, often it is implied or stated that if the rejectee ends the relationship then they are in the wrong. See the quotes I gave above.

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.

Again, I never said that this kind of thinking was in the majority. I used the word "often" as in "too often, even if this type of thinking is in the minority."

I have written before about how I too often see racist people being racist and how that needs to stop, but that does not mean I think that everyone or even the majority of people are racist. And just because the vast majority of people are not racist does not mean I am going to give the small minority a free pass. At its core racism is an incorrect mode of thinking, one that I am attempting to correct.

Similarly, I have seen some number of individuals on these forums embracing what I perceive as an incorrect mode of thinking. I am attempting to correct that error. It is entirely possible, even probable, that people other than the intended audience will read my post. In fact, I would say that most of the people who read my post will not be the intended audience.

 

[rasputin0009]

"Friendzone" was created with a negative connotation, so ya, it definitely comes with the negative baggage of the word.

Words mutate and change, and context is everything

My opinion is that if you're in the "friendzone", you're a sad, sad person.

Seriously, what's wrong with having another friend?

Because people have desires that go beyond friendship and sometimes they have enough friends.

If you develop feelings for a friend, you can tell them, and if they reject you, then you move on. While staying their friend. Much easier to do than to cry about it.

I'm getting the feeling you've never actually experienced unrequited love.

Ya, read a couple of my earlier posts so I don't feel like a broken record. But I'll sum it up with: unrequited love does not equal "friendzone". You silly goose.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I can't point to scientific peer reviewed studies from reputable journals on the crazy shit people get up to while courting if that is what you are asking. All I can go off of is what I have observed. However, I would be willing to check out any such studies you could point me to that prove your stance.

We are just having a casual conversation, I don't need you to aggressively source your opinions. I was just hoping for more than anecdotal bias.

In terms of supporting my own conjecture that the male gender role includes them assuming the role of the sexual aggressor, I could point you to any number of articles. That's a lot of work though. How about Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role

That's as much effort as I think either of us wants to put into this. =)

Notice I didn't say always, I didn't say usually, I said "often". I am not saying that everyone or even most are saying or thinking this, only that it is happening too often in my opinion.

You and I read the word "often" differently, but fair enough.

For the record, I think a rejection of romantic advancements should lead to the ASSUMPTION that the interaction is now over. It's nice when people can remain friends...or properly develop a friendship in the wake of a failed courtship...but it should never be ASSUMED.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

Again though, can you show me some examples of people shaming the jilted party for not happily remaining friends? With the ominous specter of "bad things will happen otherwise"? Because in all honesty I think that's a tonal misread of the vast majority of the backlash against the nice guy/friend zone expressions.

The shaming is the bad stuff. I don't know about you, but being generalized and having assumptions made about you to satisfy people's post hoc rationalizations of you being a bad person isn't something I'd qualify as "good".

And yes, assuming they're just butthurt over not getting sex and that they're a bad person for making their own decision to reject a relationship they do not want seems quite common. As if people generally expect that a romantically rejected party should carry on with the friendship, that making a different choice is out of the norm, that it's something only a scumbag would do. Insinuating that they had a superficial, shallow agenda ("They were perfectly willing to be friends until they were told there wasn't going to be any sex").

If there's no obligation to carry on with a relationship one does not want, why would they be called out on choosing not to otherwise? If it was assumed to be a completely viable, rational, acceptable decision, why would people take issue?

 

[DrOswald]

We already have a term for unrequited love. Unrequited love. Why do we need another one that means the exact same thing?

Friendzone is to unrequited love as mammal is to animal. That is to say friendzone is not identical to unrequited love, it is a specific type of unrequited love. When you say mammal you do not mean animal. When you say friendzone you do not mean unrequited love.

Friendzone is would actually be a useful descriptive term if we could get it away from all the negative connotations. But best to avoid the term at this point. Too much baggage. As the primary purpose of language is clear communication, stubbornly using a word you like even though it is likely to cause misunderstandings is unwise.