Ditching someone who friend zones you (Edited)

[Tarfeather]

Just a heads up, don't take me too seriously. I'm just rambling.

I've had two friends I had to turn down, and about neither of them did I think they couldn't be valuable as partners. What I thought was I didn't see them as potential partners FOR ME. Believe it or not, just because you think you're compatible with someone doesn't mean they are automatically going to feel the same.

Well, what kind of person are you? Do you have many friends? If so, I can see how that'd work. But I have at most 4 people I'd consider friends at any given time, which means I need a lot of attention from each of them. If a woman doesn't like me enough to want a relationship, she probably doesn't like me enough to dedicate a lot of time and energy to me, or at least that's my experience so far. I may very well be proven wrong.

That doesn't mean they don't think you should be with ANYBODY, they just for whateve reason aren't into you that way. That isn't your fault, and that isn't THEIR fault.

Not everybody is compatible. For example, do you feel romantically inclined to every single woman you encounter? No? Then why expect that of somebody else?

Not every single woman I encounter, but certainly every woman I developed a friendship with(again, so far). That's because in a partner I care more about brains than looks, which is also what I look for in friends.

I'm honestly curious, can you describe what it was that made you not interested in these men as partners, but still make you care about them a lot as friends? It's just hard for me to imagine, that's all.

 

[Vegosiux]

No, they are also about all the benefits I made a very short but I hope representative list of in the first paragraph of my post. The only thing I want from a lover than I can't get from a friend will be crotch-related interactions; anything else is there. Support, emotional intimacy, companionship, all that. Friends can do all those things. Hell, I've even cuddled with friends before, though admittedly rarely.

In my experience, a romantic relationship isn't an "upgrade" to friendship, but a different kind of relationship, in regards to the commitment it takes especially.

Sleeping with someone who's in a relationship with someone else, and being in a relationship with them are two entirely different things, too. One involves hiding in the closet or quickly running off in the morning, or getting a stamp of permission from their SO ("open relationships" are a thing at all ages, after all); the other involves actually belonging there without there being any fine print clauses.

Different person, different experience, who'd have thunk it?

Of course, I apologize for daring assume your experience and your stance of this is not the one and only possible perspective. I shall show myself right after I answer the next one.

If you think there is something lovers can give that friends can't that is not strictly physical, sensual pleasure, then please, let me know what it is.

Being their next of kin.

 

[Lilani]

Well, what kind of person are you? Do you have many friends? If so, I can see how that'd work. But I have at most 4 people I'd consider friends at any given time, which means I need a lot of attention from each of them. If a woman doesn't like me enough to want a relationship, she probably doesn't like me enough to dedicate a lot of time and energy to me, or at least that's my experience so far. I may very well be proven wrong.

I suppose I have many friends, but I certainly don't expect a lot of them. That's an...unfriendly way to think of people, to be honest. I'll hang out with them if they ask and I'll ask them to hang out with me if I'm out, but I certainly don't rely on them for a certain amount of attention, and nor do I EXPECT anything of the sort from them. They should hang out with me because they want to, not because I expect it of them.

That doesn't mean they don't think you should be with ANYBODY, they just for whateve reason aren't into you that way. That isn't your fault, and that isn't THEIR fault.

Not every single woman I encounter, but certainly every woman I developed a friendship with(again, so far). That's because in a partner I care more about brains than looks, which is also what I look for in friends.

I'm honestly curious, can you describe what it was that made you not interested in these men as partners, but still make you care about them a lot as friends? It's just hard for me to imagine, that's all.

That is a really unfair way to go about "friendships." I also care more about brains and demeanor than looks, but to expect them to be open to a relationship from the word go is not only selfish but just arrogant.

As for what made me not interested in them, for the first one I was pursuing another guy at the time, and while I recognized a bit of a "click" between us I was more infatuated with the other. I made my choice, and chose to tell him flat out before my relationship with the other guy became "official" because I thought that would be a cruel and unconclusive way to reject him.

For the second guy, I had no boyfriend and wasn't pursuing anybody else, but while I thought he was fun to hang out with I just didn't feel romantically attracted to him. I assume you have guy friends (and I assume you're a straight male), you know how you like hanging out with them but don't feel romantically attracted? That's how I felt about him. Fun, but not somebody I'd consider a future with.

 

[JimB]

In my experience, a romantic relationship isn't an "upgrade" to friendship, but a different kind of relationship, in regards to the commitment it takes especially.

True, but are the benefits different, and if so, how?

Being their next of kin.

I'm not totally up on the law on this one. What does being next of kin mean, except for inheritance purposes and certain legal privileges, both of which can be designated by a properly executed document? And isn't next of kin status something only automatically awarded to someone in a legally recognized relationship with a person, not merely a romantic one?

 

[Hazy]

I think we should all have expected bad pickup artist advice to come along sometime.

I just didn't expect it to be so singularly useless, and such a surefire series of instructions on being unlikeable.

I've proven at one point or another in this thread why this advice is so much more than mere pick up artistry. It's about being your own self-reliant individual, which just happens to be something women adore.

Of course, if you want to be someone who is dependent on someone else for the rest of their life, feel free to disregard my advice entirely.

Can't stop laughing. ^^ Simple question: If the first thing you think about is "How can I present myself to impress this person?", rather than "I kinda like her, I wonder if we have any interests in common I could talk to her about?", what kind of person does that make you?

Someone who wants the best out of life?

Let me ask you this: would you go into a job interview with a tank top and cutoff jean shorts? Of course not, that's ludicrous. When you treat yourself with respect, others will as well. After all, who would you be more inclined to let handle your multi-million dollar account?

Which admittedly is pretty hilariously offensive and useless. Agree that being honest from the start is a good idea, though.

"Self betterment is useless" - Tarfeather, 2014

 

[Vegosiux]

In my experience, a romantic relationship isn't an "upgrade" to friendship, but a different kind of relationship, in regards to the commitment it takes especially.

True, but are the benefits different, and if so, how?

The way tomato soup is different depending on whether my grandma cooks it or I order it in a restaurant. It's about how you experience it, not what a passing observer sees at a cursory glance. You know, one of them brings up the "Yup, this is home, and I'll always be welcome here" sentiment while the other only brings up the "Well, I suppose I better pay for this now" one.

Or let me put this differently. What's the difference between being in a relationship and being "friends with benefits"?[footnote]Holy cow, I hate that expression[/footnote] The latter is literally "friends plus the crotch stuff", which is what you claim "relationship" to be. So, are the two actually the same to you?

Note, if you answer "yes" here I'm simply going to have to agree to disagree because, well, different people, different experience. There's simply nothing else to say past acknowledging that our lives are different.

I'm not totally up on the law on this one. What does being next of kin mean, except for inheritance purposes and certain legal privileges, both of which can be designated by a properly executed document? And isn't next of kin status something only automatically awarded to someone in a legally recognized relationship with a person, not merely a romantic one?

You asked what non-physical thing a lover can give that a friend can't. Being "just friends" with someone can't result in you being their legal next of kin unless the relationship changes. Being in a relationship with them, on the other hand, can, without any need for the relationship to be changed further[footnote]Depending on jurisdiction I suppose, maybe not every one of those considers extramarital relationships equal to actual marriage[/footnote].

You might not like this answer, but one non-physical benefit, even if it seems irrelevant or situational to you (or you simply haven't thought about it) is enough to show that yes, there are non-crotch-related benefits to it.

 

[JimB]

The way tomato soup is different depending on whether my grandma cooks it or I order it in a restaurant.

I'm sorry, could you answer this in a way that does not rely on metaphors about citrus-based comestibles? I don't understand what your grandmother's tomato soup has to do with anything, nor what an outside observer has to do with anything.

Let me use myself as an example again. I am not in a romantic relationship with a woman I am friends with. What am I not getting from that friendship that I would be getting if we were romantic?

Or let me put this differently. What's the difference between being in a relationship and being "friends with benefits?"

I have never used that term, so I can only guess. I would venture it's to do with the level of expectation involved, which seems to fall on that scale you dislike of romantic relationships being upgrades to friendships.

You asked what non-physical thing a lover can give that a friend can't.

The lover is not giving that. The law is.

Being "just friends" with someone can't result in you being their legal next of kin unless the relationship changes.

The law has changed recently, then, because I work in hospice care and I have personal experience of several individuals who listed as next of kin someone related to him by neither blood nor law.

 

[Lilani]

Someone who wants the best out of life?

Let me ask you this: would you go into a job interview with a tank top and cutoff jean shorts? Of course not, that's ludicrous. When you treat yourself with respect, others will as well. After all, who would you be more inclined to let handle your multi-million dollar account?

Except relationships aren't jobs, and going out with someone isn't an interview. Unlike an employer, people in relationships should accept you at your best AND your worst. They need to know who you really are, and know exactly who they are letting into their life. To put on a facade when introducing yourself to someone you might want to be in a relationship is not only lying to them about who you are, it's lying to yourself about whether or not they actually want to be with YOU.

And people aren't stupid. Eventually if you remain together long enough they'll see what aspects of you that you lied about or covered up. Do you think they'll be flattered by that or appreciate it? Probably not. They'll probably just wonder how they didn't see it before, and begin to wonder what else they thought about you is wrong.

 

[mecegirl]

If a woman doesn't like me enough to want a relationship, she probably doesn't like me enough to dedicate a lot of time and energy to me, or at least that's my experience so far. I may very well be proven wrong.

...Do you apply this same standard to your male friends?

What I want to know if how he assumes people who are homosexual pursue friendships with the same sex....

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm sorry, could you answer this in a way that does not rely on metaphors about citrus-based comestibles?

Yes, I could.[footnote]You didn't ask "Will you answer this..." and I'm not here for your amusement.[/footnote] This was only one of the options.

Let me use myself as an example again. I am not in a romantic relationship with a woman I am friends with. What am I not getting from that friendship that I would be getting if we were romantic?

I'm sorry, are you asking me to play an armchair psychologist? Cause, seeing as I don't know you at all, I naturally can't answer that question without making some big assumptions I have no reason to believe are founded in reality, and I'm not going to walk into that one.

I could answer that question for myself. I can't answer it for you.

I have never used that term, so I can only guess. I would venture it's to do with the level of expectation involved, which seems to fall on that scale you dislike of romantic relationships being upgrades to friendships.

"Dislike"? I'm not sure who's disliking that. I do recall saying that they're essentially not an upgrade but a different relationship to me. I've never said I dislike one changing into the other, though. So, yeah I'm going to ignore this bit.

The law stuff

Or maybe we live in different parts of the world. Then again, seeing as you've so casually dismissed everything I've said from my own personal experience, I'm not sure why I should give a toss about yours.

In fact, I'm not going to give a toss about anything else you say until you acknowledge the fact that as a person who is not you, my experience might have been different from yours, and stop trying to force me to accept your perspective as any more correct than my own is.

 

[Eddie the head]

And while it may have sexist roots it's a completely different beast today.

I don't see how its a different thing today.....its conflating weakness with being female

(FYI I swear to go I'm not picking on you.) I'm pretty sure that counts as a etymological fallacy. To use a pertinent example the word lady has it's origins in the old English word for "bread-kneader." Using the logic you just demonstrated calling someone a lady is conflating them with being a house wife.

I will grant you there is some gray area in this. What I think you need to do is look at the context and intent of the statement. Words are a social construct, and as a social construct they can mean different things in different social situations.

 

[IceStar100]

Someone who wants the best out of life?

Let me ask you this: would you go into a job interview with a tank top and cutoff jean shorts? Of course not, that's ludicrous. When you treat yourself with respect, others will as well. After all, who would you be more inclined to let handle your multi-million dollar account?

Except relationships aren't jobs, and going out with someone isn't an interview. Unlike an employer, people in relationships should accept you at your best AND your worst. They need to know who you really are, and know exactly who they are letting into their life. To put on a facade when introducing yourself to someone you might want to be in a relationship is not only lying to them about who you are, it's lying to yourself about whether or not they actually want to be with YOU.

And people aren't stupid. Eventually if you remain together long enough they'll see what aspects of you that you lied about or covered up. Do you think they'll be flattered by that or appreciate it? Probably not. They'll probably just wonder how they didn't see it before, and begin to wonder what else they thought about you is wrong.

I don't know no body is there true self dating. Men shave every day women hold their gas ect. Same with a job to a degree when you show up you wear a suit and talk all about how good you are. No one admit they check out facebook on company time. It take time before someone is willing to show their bad side.

 

[Lilani]

I don't know no body is there true self dating. Men shave every day women hold their gas ect. Same with a job to a degree when you show up you wear a suit and talk all about how good you are. No one admit they check out facebook on company time. It take time before someone is willing to show their bad side.

There is a bit of dressing up that goes on, and I think everybody expects that to a reasonable point. My boyfriend dressed up on our first date and so did I, but neither of us were under the impression we always dressed that nice. However, there's a fine line between "dressing up and being extra polite" and "trying to impress someone." Trying to impress someone entails a lot more deceit, like lying about things you're interested in, lying about things you do, or catering ALL of your responses to be the perfect one rather than the truthful one.

Dressing up for a date shouldn't be a matter of "trying to impress." It should be a matter of just showing you understand the significance of the occasion.

 

[JimB]

I'm sorry, are you asking me to play an armchair psychologist?

I am asking you to talk about specifics, and most of my attempts thus far have failed, so I am trying a tactic that uses a concrete example.

Then again, seeing as you've so casually dismissed everything I've said from my own personal experience, I'm not sure why I should give a toss about yours.

The things you have said do not make sense to me, so I have asked you--fairly politely, I thought--to explain yourself in terminology I can understand. You have chosen not to do so. That is your right, but it is not my dismissal. I am not the one dismissing people in this instance.

As to why you should give a toss: if you are actually interested in having an exchange of information with me, then I think it is relevant for you to know that an assertion you have made directly contradicts documented evidence I personally possess. If you're not interested in that exchange, then no, you probably ought not to care.

In fact, I'm not going to give a toss about anything else you say until you acknowledge the fact that as a person who is not you, my experience might have been different from yours, and stop trying to force me to accept your perspective as any more correct than my own is.

I thought that asking you for explanations is a de facto acknowledgement that your experiences are different. Why would I need to ask for explanations if they were my experiences?

 

[mecegirl]

Because romantic pursuits are only about "fucking."

No, they are also about all the benefits I made a very short but I hope representative list of in the first paragraph of my post. The only thing I want from a lover than I can't get from a friend will be crotch-related interactions; anything else is there. Support, emotional intimacy, companionship, all that. Friends can do all those things. Hell, I've even cuddled with friends before, though admittedly rarely.

If you think there is something lovers can give that friends can't that is not strictly physical, sensual pleasure, then please, let me know what it is.

There is a connection particular to being in a romantic relationship. It is just something that doesn't develop until the relationship has started. So no, sex isn't the only thing that lovers can give. If that were the case asexual individuals wouldn't exist and desire romantic relationships at all.

Feelings of love are closer to an obsession than everything else. Which is why is is possible to "love" someone who you don't have emotional intimacy with. Or even someone who downright treats you like shit. I think people let themselves get so swept up in their obsession that they imagine that once the other person accepts/returns their feelings that magical things will happen once they finally get together.

 

[JimB]

Feelings of love are closer to an obsession than everything else, which is why is is possible to "love" someone who you don't have emotional intimacy with.

You and I understand the word "love" to be describing two very different phenomena, and I'm not sure I want to argue about it if we can't even agree on what the word means.

 

[mecegirl]

Feelings of love are closer to an obsession than everything else, which is why is is possible to "love" someone who you don't have emotional intimacy with.

You and I understand the word "love" to be describing two very different phenomena, and I'm not sure I want to argue about it if we can't even agree on what the word means.

The word "love" doesn't adequately express what it means, because "love" isn't a singular concept. There are simply too many different types of "love". But that has more to do with the limitations of the English language than anything else. But "love" as it relates to romantic relationships does have an element of obsession to it, especially in its early stages.

 

[IceStar100]

I don't know no body is there true self dating. Men shave every day women hold their gas ect. Same with a job to a degree when you show up you wear a suit and talk all about how good you are. No one admit they check out facebook on company time. It take time before someone is willing to show their bad side.

There is a bit of dressing up that goes on, and I think everybody expects that to a reasonable point. My boyfriend dressed up on our first date and so did I, but neither of us were under the impression we always dressed that nice. However, there's a fine line between "dressing up and being extra polite" and "trying to impress someone." Trying to impress someone entails a lot more deceit, like lying about things you're interested in, lying about things you do, or catering ALL of your responses to be the perfect one rather than the truthful one.

Dressing up for a date shouldn't be a matter of "trying to impress." It should be a matter of just showing you understand the significance of the occasion.

I have to give you that one. The impress some one seems like it would be more harmful. Like applying for a job in a day care when you hate kids... I think I might be stuck on the job thing.

(Caption (the next level) fitting for this discusstion.

 

[Hazy]

Except relationships aren't jobs, and going out with someone isn't an interview. Unlike an employer, people in relationships should accept you at your best AND your worst. They need to know who you really are, and know exactly who they are letting into their life. To put on a facade when introducing yourself to someone you might want to be in a relationship is not only lying to them about who you are, it's lying to yourself about whether or not they actually want to be with YOU.

Dressing your best is putting on facade now? Acknowledging one another's faults is a healthy part of any relationship, yes, but that also doesn't mean you should put them out on display the second you meet someone. And that's where it ties into the job metaphor I mentioned: trust.

I'm not trying to turn you into a bronzed sexual god, I'm trying to teach people to be the very best they can be.

And people aren't stupid. Eventually if you remain together long enough they'll see what aspects of you that you lied about or covered up. Do you think they'll be flattered by that or appreciate it? Probably not. They'll probably just wonder how they didn't see it before, and begin to wonder what else they thought about you is wrong.

Never once did I encourage anybody to lie. I encouraged people to better themselves mentally by talking to other women (gaining knowledge), physically (lifting weights and losing weight), and hygienically (dressing properly and ensuring cleanliness). Attracting women isn't the focal point of this by a long shot, that comes as a byproduct of all the care you give yourself.

It's like when guys get rejected and say "Oh, well it's because women only like guys with a lot of money." Well, they acquired that money because they were put in leadership positions because they showed the aptitude to be able to handle such a role (again, trust) the money just comes as a byproduct of that responsibility. And how did they land such a role? Because they showed confidence, they carried themselves with pride, and they dressed accordingly. That is what I mean when I say "Do you trust this guy to handle your multi-million dollar account?" Which of these two gentlemen looks more up to the task?