Can we talk about the "friend zone" and "nice guys" for a moment?

Nyaliva

euclideanInsomniac
Sep 9, 2010
317
0
0
I find I always have to be friends with a girl before I can become a boyfriend, does that mean I'm doomed?

Seriously though, guys need to understand that banging chicks shouldn't be a reason to start a relationship and they certainly shouldn't expect a girl to let them just because you're friends. This is why girls friendzone guys, they think guys think relationship means sex and they don't want that from you. Sometimes it's because you're unattractive but sometimes because they actually believe it would ruin your friendship. Some girls will automatically friendzone all guys and that you can't help, but if you want to take a friendship to the next level, it can't be for sex. Girls have a sense for these things, they're like bears...

they can smell your fear...

Finally, the whole "nice guys finish last" thing is just something guys tell themselves so they don't have to be nice. The thing is, a relationship does not hinge on whether you're nice or a complete tool, and being nice until you have sex isn't going to make her love you. She'll realise you were just being nice to get into her pants and she'll hate you. This is another reason girls will often friendzone guys, because they know (or sometimes just assume) when you just want to get in their pants, and they don't want you to stop being nice.
 

Idocreating

New member
Apr 16, 2009
333
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Idocreating said:
The entire concept of the friend zone is such a farce to me. That a person, be they male or female, can expect to stay friends with a person after romantically rejecting them is such a flaw in character that I'd say the rejector, not the rejectee, is the more pathetic person for exercising such a careless decision.
Rejecting them is a careless decision? Yeah, no, that's BS if that's what you're saying.
Anyone is perfectly within their rights to romantically reject someone, it's part of your own emotional wellbeing to not get involved in a relationship you have no confidence in.

What is careless is rejecting someone and still believing you can be friends like the subject of them being attracted to you never even came up in the first place. I know this from firsthand experience, as the rejector. It remains one of the messiest, regretful series of events in my life.
 

DanDeFool

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
0
imahobbit4062 said:
I'd agree with the whole "Just because you're nice doesn't entitle you to a relationship with them"
However, the friend I had feelings for, hooked up with me (while she was completely sober mind you) months after we became friends, then when I confessed my feelings for her I was instantly friend zoned.
Now that was bullshit.
Relationships are weird like that.

I've heard that you should never tell a woman you love her unless you've been together for a long time send you're going to marry her, since it almost always drives them away. I suspect it's because it's almost like asking her to marry you. It's like, "Wait, you've only known me for a couple of days, and already you're feeling profound emotions for me?"

I think that'd make anyone a little freaked.

It might also just kill the interest. Like turning the cheat codes on for a game. Then it's like, "Oh, you love me. Great. So much for this being a(n) challenging/interesting/fun relationship where I actually have to try."
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
I'll chip in.

From what I always understood 'friend-zone' to mean, is that there's a nebulous span of time where women will weigh attraction possibility. Any time after that nebulousness span of time, if the guy or gal in question did not spark the proper amount of interest within said woman... he or she is friend-zoned. The woman in question made her mind up about what this person will be in for the rest of their time together. If you didn't make her interested, Friend-zoned.

Back when I cared, I had a particular hard time with this because I never just jumped on a girl because I found her to be attractive. To wit, I normally don't find women attractive until I get to know them. And by the time something happened, I passed the nebulous time. You can't put up a warning, because you'll never know if you're attracted to this girl, so you take your chances.

to the subject of this thread... I have issues when a 'representative' of a segment of the population calls out different segment of the population for doing something they don't like. I mean, anyone from that other segment can out right call that representative out for continuing to do something that his or her segment is known for. Everyone does something to bother everyone. I'm bothering someone right now for typing this. The standard answer would be to accept it as how life is and move on.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
museofdoom said:
The 'friend zone' isn't specifically, or even predominantly, a male problem though. I personally know several women madly in love with a guy who just thinks of them as a buddy, or 'one of the guys'. The problem, though, is that, like women and the sexism megaphone, men and the friend zone megaphone know each other intimately.

Seriously, no offense guys, but we, as a gender (generalizations HO!), complain about it far too much... I've been 'friend-zoned' a number of times, and this is the first time in recent memory that I've ever mentioned it in anything more than passing...

Anywho, OT, guys are too vocal about the friend zone, but women have just as many issues with it, and can be just as irritatingly loud about it, but the root-cause of the 'friend-zone' fiasco is usually the 'zoned' party not admitting their feelings fast enough, and letting them build up until it seems like getting rejected is the end of your world.
 

Moromillas

New member
May 25, 2010
328
0
0
museofdoom said:
Since this is a predominantly male community, I figured talking about this here would result in the most interesting feedback. And I suppose I'm in the mood for a little controversy.

So you become friends with a female, and you really like her in that way. You spend time with her, you're kind to her, and you're always doing her favors. Eventually you pluck up the courage to confess your attraction and then GASP! she doesn't like you that way, and wants to stay friends! So now you go to all your buddies and cry that you were "friend zoned". Oh my goodness how dare that biotch not have any romantic feelings towards you!! You weren't a jerk to her so you were entitled to a relationship with her! And since your plans to get a little action were in vain, you cease being friends with the girl. And now the girl is left without a friend, and the knowledge that you were only friends with her in hopes of getting in her pants.

Do you realize how ridiculous whining about being "friend zoned" is? And that if you really wanna be a nice guy, that you should be nice to girls even if you don't want in their pants?

Also, when a girl says "I wish I could find a guy like you" but they don't want you, think of it this way: (stealing the metaphor from a friend of mine) Say you are out shopping and you want to buy a red pair of shoes. You get to the shoe store and find a nice pair of red shoes, but that particular pair of shoes isn't exactly suited to your taste so you continue looking and maybe you end up getting a pair of shoes completely different to what you were originally looking for. So when a girl says, "I wish I could find a guy like you" it means she likes your qualities, but isn't attracted to you. This does not make her a hypocrite, or a *****. So please stop whining and making yourselves out to be a victim of some heinous crime because the girl you like doesn't like you.

Sorry for the little rant, I've just seen too many "friend zone" related memes and rage comics recently. 0___0
:S Seriously?

Not about trying to get into someones pants. If we wanted a dock for our cocks that bad, we would go to the whore house, and buy it. Breaking off a friendship if it gets to that is very reasonable, even sensible. Where the hell are you getting this "omg, she's such a *****, how dare she" entitlement crap from? If you have romantic feelings for another, you can't just switch it on and off like a light switch. You're trying to say that they should bottle it all up, and just let it build into sorrow or resentment? You're shitting me right? No, they have every right to chose to be friends or not, no matter what you say on some internet forum.

Not as ridiculous as whining about the whiners. Because venting and talking about your feelings is a bad thing, we should all just go back to banging on walls and using a series of grunts and clicks.

Saying one thing, but meaning another. There's a word for someone that does that, what was it? Oh yeah, a liar.
 

Spearmaster

New member
Mar 10, 2010
378
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Spearmaster said:
1 all is fair in love and war
Incorrect. That's one of those sayings that have no meaning. There are things that are not fair, and dishonesty is one of those things, for example.

There's also extensive legislation on what's fair and what isn't in a war, as well.
actually the meaning is that in love and war (moments of passion) people can turn into animals with no regard for the feelings or well being of others (all is fair), that is why we have that "extensive legislation" for war, there are currently no laws concerning love, unless its stalking or violence or something of that nature
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
I have seen this dozens of times and heard girls refer to stupid things such as "boyfriend material" Vs " Marriage material".
Why is that a stupid thing? Nature itself configured us that way, fluctuating hormone levels dictate what kind of person we find attractive. For women, that means what kind of man they want to make children and what kind of man she wants to raise them.
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
Hagi said:
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm not even saying you should take thing literally.

But I am saying that it's perfectly reasonable to get angry when someone, woman or not, is so ambiguous and indirect on so important a topic.

There are times when it's better to be more direct and unambiguous, like rejection. Being indirect at such a time will hurt those you're rejecting in the long run.

It doesn't make those who are ambiguous at such time bad people or anything like that, just normal people. But getting angry over that doesn't make you a bad person either, just a normal one.

If you're always direct then sometimes you'll anger someone. If you're always indirect then sometimes you'll anger someone. Just a part of life. There's very few social geniuses who always know when to be direct or indirect and never anger people.
No it doesn't make you a bad person for getting angry. But if you understood these principles, understood what she meant, then you don't have to get angry. This would've helped the TS as he clearly regrets breaking the friendship. It's not so much about right or wrong, it's about what helps you as a person get by in life.

The topic of when it's best to be direct or not is an interesting one. I struggle with that on a daily basis. I always tend to the direct side, but that is often not as appreciated by others as it would be by me.
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
blackrave said:
tobyornottoby said:
Aprilgold said:
tobyornottoby said:
Aprilgold said:
And we come to the great circle of truth about this. Theres a tails to every head, and a paint for every color. Just because "Friend Zone Whining" makes you seem like you felt entitled to sex, it is more or less because of the heart break. You just wanted it so badly and working up that courage takes a long time only to have yourself rejected. Of course its also the ultimate dick move to say that "I like your personality, but you yourself can go die in a tar-pit" or something to that degree.
Why? looks matter to a lot of people. She appreciates you as a friend, no dying in tar-pits required. If this is brought in a tactical manner, there's nothing dickish about it.
Because it shows that she will only date you or others for their looks, not for their personalities which is as shallow as saying that you will only date the biggest hunk at school. Saying that your not my type is better then saying that you are my type but you look like shit.
A cow is an animal, an animal isn't a cow. Saying you don't want to date someone who has the personality but not the looks is not saying you would date someone who has the looks but not the personality.
But this is exactly like that
It seems that girls needs extensive experience to tell difference between pretense and sincerity.
So pretty face can easily pretend for a night or two, to get you into bed.
Is he shallow? Sure. But that doesn't matter because he's pretty and spew some romantic bullshit.
Or maybe they genuinely like what pretty face has to offer, despite the downsides.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
I haven't really experienced it myself, but I once talked to my sister(19) about some people, and she literally sees some guys she's good friends for years now as "asexual things", as in, she would never get the idea of doing something else.
Weird, isn't it?
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
tobyornottoby said:
Jimbo1212 said:
I have seen this dozens of times and heard girls refer to stupid things such as "boyfriend material" Vs " Marriage material".
Why is that a stupid thing? Nature itself configured us that way, fluctuating hormone levels dictate what kind of person we find attractive. For women, that means what kind of man they want to make children and what kind of man she wants to raise them.
Erm, no. Nature did not make you that way, stupid concepts and an immature society made you think that way.
Why do I say this?
Because it makes no sense!
What does it even mean, and why would you not go for someone who was "marriage material" every time? All I see is the choice of going for a decent guy and going for some douche who you hope you can change etc and will inevitably lead to a really crappy relationship and misery.

Also, your comment has absolutely zero scientific basis. If you had actually read any studies then you would know that what you said is simply wrong and that women simply want a steady partner, not different ones depending on what time of the month it is.
And lets not forget, you can always ignore your hormones and use your head.

So yes, everything you said is horribly flawed in numerous ways.
 

Giftfromme

New member
Nov 3, 2011
555
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
tobyornottoby said:
Jimbo1212 said:
I have seen this dozens of times and heard girls refer to stupid things such as "boyfriend material" Vs " Marriage material".
Why is that a stupid thing? Nature itself configured us that way, fluctuating hormone levels dictate what kind of person we find attractive. For women, that means what kind of man they want to make children and what kind of man she wants to raise them.
Erm, no. Nature did not make you that way, stupid concepts and an immature society made you think that way.
Why do I say this?
Because it makes no sense!
What does it even mean, and why would you not go for someone who was "marriage material" every time? All I see is the choice of going for a decent guy and going for some douche who you hope you can change etc and will inevitably lead to a really crappy relationship and misery.

Also, your comment has absolutely zero scientific basis. If you had actually read any studies then you would know that what you said is simply wrong and that women simply want a steady partner, not different ones depending on what time of the month it is.
And lets not forget, you can always ignore your hormones and use your head.

So yes, everything you said is horribly flawed in numerous ways.
That is partially correct. It is a social construction, but studies have shown that women want different men at different times of the month. So for example, if she knows she is ovulating, she will choose a good looking sexual partner, all the better to father children with good genes. While at other times of the month she will choose a more reliable partner, one who is more likely to actually provide for her (as the good looking one might not etc), so typically this is how affairs work, but of course they vary
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
What does it even mean, and why would you not go for someone who was "marriage material" every time?
Because marriage is not the ultimate goal of every single thing we do? How about having a a bit of fun.

Jimbo1212 said:
All I see is the choice of going for a decent guy and going for some douche who you hope you can change etc and will inevitably lead to a really crappy relationship and misery.
'All you can see' huh. Wishful seeing. What you call 'decent' others may see as 'boring', etc. Inevitably? It's not like every guy who does take care of his appearance dies horribly alone.

Jimbo1212 said:
Also, your comment has absolutely zero scientific basis. If you had actually read any studies then you would know that what you said is simply wrong and that women simply want a steady partner, not different ones depending on what time of the month it is.
I've read multiple about the latter.

Jimbo1212 said:
And lets not forget, you can always ignore your hormones and use your head.
Humans are not computers. Some of them, maybe, more than others. But most of us have feelings and emotions and don't think and live just with their heads.

Jimbo1212 said:
Erm, no. Nature did not make you that way, stupid concepts and an immature society made you think that way.
Why do I say this?
Because it makes no sense!

[...]

So yes, everything you said is horribly flawed in numerous ways.
Whereas "because it makes no sense" is a shining beacon of flawless arguing.
 

Funky Flump

New member
Jun 24, 2010
121
0
0
Quite honestly I hate this topic, people trying to nail down human relationships doesn't really work too well from my experience. Things happen, I doubt its some specific formula or routine that people make it sound like.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
tobyornottoby said:
Jimbo1212 said:
What does it even mean, and why would you not go for someone who was "marriage material" every time?
Because marriage is not the ultimate goal of every single thing we do? How about having a a bit of fun.

Jimbo1212 said:
All I see is the choice of going for a decent guy and going for some douche who you hope you can change etc and will inevitably lead to a really crappy relationship and misery.
'All you can see' huh. Wishful seeing. What you call 'decent' others may see as 'boring', etc. Inevitably? It's not like every guy who does take care of his appearance dies horribly alone.

Jimbo1212 said:
Also, your comment has absolutely zero scientific basis. If you had actually read any studies then you would know that what you said is simply wrong and that women simply want a steady partner, not different ones depending on what time of the month it is.
I've read multiple about the latter.

Jimbo1212 said:
And lets not forget, you can always ignore your hormones and use your head.
Humans are not computers. Some of them, maybe, more than others. But most of us have feelings and emotions and don't think and live just with their heads.

Jimbo1212 said:
Erm, no. Nature did not make you that way, stupid concepts and an immature society made you think that way.
Why do I say this?
Because it makes no sense!

[...]

So yes, everything you said is horribly flawed in numerous ways.
Whereas "because it makes no sense" is a shining beacon of flawless arguing.

- Naturally, women do not seek "a but of fun". This has been a proven fact for the last 50 years. To do such a thing is due to large underlying emotional problems.

- No - I mean a good, decent guy who is fun, and smart, and not a prick. I see many girls going out with guys who other men would instantly recognise as a thug, and then for some reason the girl is surprised when the guy cheats/beats her, yet none of the men are.

- Links to sources then.

- What separates humans from other animals? The ability to think before acting. To not do this makes the person as backwards as a dog.
Also, many girls would solve their emotional problems if they actually stopped to think for a second. The fact that they do not shows a level of denial or fear from confronting their problems. This is extremely unhealthy.

- Yes, logic dictates and solves everything. If something makes no sense, then it is wrong or poorly explained.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
tobyornottoby said:
No it doesn't make you a bad person for getting angry. But if you understood these principles, understood what she meant, then you don't have to get angry. This would've helped the TS as he clearly regrets breaking the friendship. It's not so much about right or wrong, it's about what helps you as a person get by in life.

The topic of when it's best to be direct or not is an interesting one. I struggle with that on a daily basis. I always tend to the direct side, but that is often not as appreciated by others as it would be by me.
You're entirely correct but I think you're missing the main point of my post.

I'm not saying he shouldn't get back together with his friend. I'm saying he shouldn't feel guilty about temporarily breaking that friendship. That was as much her fault as his.

Currently he clearly feels he's the bad guy and he deserves the blame. I think he's wrong. Both parties were responsibly and, to add to that, if both parties don't put any effort into getting back together I'd put some serious question marks with how good this friendship really is.

He should attempt to get back together. But if she doesn't start putting effort into that as well after he invites her to hang out or whatever then as far as I'm concerned the friendship isn't worth it. It has to come from both sides.