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

[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.

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

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

I am a woman, and I do stay FAAAAR away from men who use the word Friendzone.

Also, that film is very disturbing...I like it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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?

I see censure being specifically applied to the use of the word "friend zone", because of the associations that have become married to it. That women SPECIFICALLY "friend zone" men. That the parameters of the zone make it specifically a "no sex" zone. That there is an entitlement to payoff after all the effort put into the courtship. To quote the first entry in the urban dictionary:

"I spent all that money on a date, just to find out she put me in the Friend Zone(said with eerie echo)."

And from the second entry:

"Well why the fuck did I waste two months on you?"

There's been an effort in this thread to disassociate the term from this mentality and return it to being a cheerful synonym for unrequited love, but that just results in the reason for the backlash against it getting lost.

There's a specific TYPE of individual who self-identifies as a "nice guy" and moans about not getting a sex reward for all their niceness. That is the behavior/mentality I see getting shamed. I don't see this universal castigation of every victim of unrequited love. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, or not looking in the right places. As Oswald helpfully quote mined, there are certainly people here and there who believe friendship is a sacred duty and you should just smother your ardor and soldier on, but I remain unconvinced it is a commonplace phenomenon.

 

[DugMachine]

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.

This. I'm of the mind that one should move on after getting "friendzoned" but not everyone deals with rejection equally. Unless this person is lashing out and trying to harm or harass the girl (or guy) who friendzoned them, then let them sulk for a while and try to comfort them.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm of the mind that one should move on after getting "friendzoned" but not everyone deals with rejection equally. Unless this person is lashing out and trying to harm or harass the girl (or guy) who friendzoned them, then let them sulk for a while and try to comfort them.

Eh. I spent a long time in my early 20's having short, disastrous relationships and experiencing a chain of painful rejections. I got a lot of comfort from my friends, and fancied myself a sad and put upon fellow, and all it resulted in was me developing a proper little resentment-fueled misogynistic streak that didn't clear up until I was almost 30. I actually think the WORST thing you can do for a friend post breakup is offer them unconditional comfort. Breakups or rejections can and should be learning experiences, and letting people stew in the juices of self pity or recrimination is seldom helpful.

Mind you, it's your friend. You're still going to be nice about it and give them a shoulder to cry on. I'm just being contrary BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I DO.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I'm of the mind that one should move on after getting "friendzoned" but not everyone deals with rejection equally. Unless this person is lashing out and trying to harm or harass the girl (or guy) who friendzoned them, then let them sulk for a while and try to comfort them.

Eh. I spent a long time in my early 20's having short, disastrous relationships and experiencing a chain of painful rejections. I got a lot of comfort from my friends, and fancied myself a sad and put upon fellow, and all it resulted in was me developing a proper little resentment-fueled misogynistic streak that didn't clear up until I was almost 30. I actually think the WORST thing you can do for a friend post breakup is offer them unconditional comfort. Breakups or rejections can and should be learning experiences, and letting people stew in the juices of self pity or recrimination is seldom helpful.

Mind you, it's your friend. You're still going to be nice about it and give them a shoulder to cry on. I'm just being contrary BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I DO.

For some reason your response makes me think that perhaps the true measure of a self proclaimed "nice guy" is actually how he treats other men, especially when women aren't around, since this eliminated the "ulterior motives based around sex" idea. Then again if the "nice guy" is bisexual this all goes to hell.
Edit: Anyone else getting a add for something called "the Sub" blocking half of the type box?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's a bit like the "YOLO" craze. You could argue that "you only live once" is a useful philosophy to live by, but it's sort of become tainted by the number of people who yell it before setting their butts on fire or similar acts of silliness.

YOLO should always precede sensible, cautious behavior. Like buckling your seat belt, or starting a low fat, high fiber diet.

 

[Overusedname]

Good golly gosh the internet's been talking about this for a while.

I don't have much to add, other than I have no idea what the term first meant or means, just that it's an empty term with little logical sentiment behind it that oversimplifies relationships into a point system and an 'off and on' switch between friend and lover.

Don't see the benefit of continuing to use the term.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

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

I am a woman, and I do stay FAAAAR away from men who use the word Friendzone.

Also, that film is very disturbing...I like it.

I think that's what it comes down to. If I'm talking to a guy and he starts complaining about how he's been friendzoned, it literally sets off a system of red flags and alarm bells in my head, because I know the kind of people who tend to use that word, and how they tend to use it.

It's a bit like the "YOLO" craze. You could argue that "you only live once" is a useful philosophy to live by, but it's sort of become tainted by the number of people who yell it before setting their butts on fire or similar acts of silliness.

Well, I can hardly change your ideas on this, but I would suggest you try and see what they mean by the word, since if they are using the word in the context of "unrequited romantic feelings in a friendship" then they hardly deserve to be judged for it. The usage of a single word rarely is a window to a persons character.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

Well, there really isn't much between anecdotal evidence and sourced citation. Because everything that isn't sourced citation is pretty much anecdotal. It is all "I once knew someone who ..." or "It only makes sense that because..." and none of that really means anything certain when not properly analyzed.

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. =)

I agree that in traditional gender roles the male is expected to initiate and push forward the relationship. But that is not what you said.

"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."

I will agree that women are far less likely to engage in the particular courtship behavior of the aggressor and are thus much less likely to be "friendzoned", but your statement was far more general than that and I read it literally.

If anything, because the female is not traditionally the aggressor she must engage in more courtship behaviors that are likely to cause miscommunication and a sense of entitlement. Because the traditional role of the woman does not allow her to plainly state "I want to be in a sexual relationship with you" she must instead indirectly attract the man. The traditional woman must drop hints and subtle signals. And she must not appear to be too eager (lest she be considered "easy".) And because no two women will have the same idea of how to go about dropping hints or subtly suggesting romance it is very easy for men to misinterpret the signals given. A woman, after spending much time and energy trying to attract a man, might become angry at the man for missing the hints. I have seen this often. I have been the man oblivious to the hints. I have been lectured by women for hurting their friends when I ignored advances I had no idea were occurring.

Of course, that is all just how I see it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well you can use it around normal people but in the world of spazzy internet folk(as clearly displayed in this very thread) you should always keep a list of things that will cause flamewars, and it's not that people actually believe what they yammer on about they just want to be part of a herd.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

Again, the term has had a significant backlash because of its sexist connotations. It is the idea that all mens sexual and romantic needs must be met eventually after the women acknowledges how wonderful/charming they are, or they'll throw a hissy fit because the girl is 'denying' them what they think they deserve 'because they're such nice guys'.

I'm glad people called bullshit across the web, it's a stupid concept. Unrequited love is something all people experience and the male in question doesn't have to pretend like it doesn't hurt him (I'm not saying all men who experience it are bad)...but making a point of shouting your sexual frustration from the rooftops (all over memebase) makes you look and sound entitled to the woman's attention.

At the risk of getting banned, I'll leave these pics up for my own brand of juvenile meme humor

http://wtfniceguys.tumblr.com/image/15814494698

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Again, the term has had a significant backlash because of its sexist connotations. It is the idea that all mens sexual and romantic needs must be met eventually after the women acknowledges how wonderful/charming they are, or they'll throw a hissy fit because the girl is 'denying' them what they think they deserve 'because they're such nice guys'.

I'm glad people called bullshit across the web, it's a stupid concept. Unrequited love is something all people experience and the male in question doesn't have to pretend like it doesn't hurt him (I'm not saying all men who experience it are bad)...but making a point of shouting your sexual frustration from the rooftops (all over memebase) makes you look and sound entitled to the woman's attention.

At the risk of getting banned, I'll leave these pics up for my own brand of juvenile meme humor

http://wtfniceguys.tumblr.com/image/15814494698

Sigh, again why does it always have to be the implication that all men who use the term friendzone are automatically douche-bags regardless of other actions? Again, its a term that means unrequited love with a close friendship, usually a male to a female, it doesn't have to mean anything else or have any other implications. It is a useful slang term, and we need to let go of the constant freakout over its usage in a perfectly fine situation. Again, I had a crush on a girl I was close friends with, she didn't have feelings for me, but wanted to continue our friendship and appreciated me as a friend. In other words I was "friendzoned" or placed in the "friendzone". That simple.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If anything, because the female is not traditionally the aggressor she must engage in more courtship behaviors that are likely to cause miscommunication and a sense of entitlement. Because the traditional role of the woman does not allow her to plainly state "I want to be in a sexual relationship with you" she must instead indirectly attract the man. The traditional woman must drop hints and subtle signals. And she must not appear to be too eager (lest she be considered "easy".) And because no two women will have the same idea of how to go about dropping hints or subtly suggesting romance it is very easy for men to misinterpret the signals given. A woman, after spending much time and energy trying to attract a man, might become angry at the man for missing the hints. I have seen this often. I have been the man oblivious to the hints. I have been lectured by women for hurting their friends when I ignored advances I had no idea were occurring.

It's an interesting observation. For my own part...if you'll permit me MY anecdotal experience...I've never caught hell from a woman for rejecting them or "friend zoning" them. And I was quite the stellar ass about it in a couple of situations and most definitely deserved to catch hell. I have, however, heard the sad song of the "nice guy" on many an occasion, and even spent a few years singing it myself. It seems to be a predominantly...if not necessarily uniquely...male behavior to bemoan "the friend zone".

Sigh, again why does it always have to be the implication that all men who use the term friendzone are automatically douche-bags regardless of other actions? Again, its a term that means unrequited love with a close friendship, usually a male to a female, it doesn't have to mean anything else or have any other implications.

And again, yes, it does. It might not according to your personal definition, but in common usage it most certainly does have those implications. The fact the entire thread is aware of and is discussing those implications is evidence enough of that, if you're unconvinced by the urban dictionary.