Ditching someone who friend zones you (Edited)

[Weaver]

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

I just never, at all, understood this sentiment. No one does this. You meet someone, start off as friends, and one person develops feelings while the other doesn't. The notion also conflates sex and romance and just seems to entirely misunderstand and oversimplify everything.

 

[Lightknight]

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

Being put in the "friend zone" doesn't mean that the person is sad because they're not getting laid. Not unless you only date someone because that's all you're interested in.

It means that they are romantically interested in the individual but their feelings are not returned.

So no, friend zoning doesn't just relate to sex. Sex just happens to be part of a romantic relationship which the friend zone doesn't allow.

Now, if you are attracted to someone you may befriend them with the full intention of it developing into a romantic relationship. There is NOTHING wrong with this and is often a less direct way to date. I did that a few times just to see if I wanted to date the girl and figured out pretty quickly that I didn't. Fortunately, since we were just being friendly there was no awkward breakup. Now, had I then decided that I wanted a romantic relationship and was turned down but with the intention of us staying friends then that's what would be considered a friend zone. There's also nothing wrong with being unhappy with that just like you can be unhappy with any kind of rejection. As long as you don't feel entitled to be loved or to have a physical relationship then this is how a lot of relationships start. But stop trying to make the problem all about sex. Romantic relationships are far more complex than that. Or can be, anyways. But just dismissing people as just being mad about not getting laid when they discuss the friend zone is an ignorant way to dismiss a more complex scenario.

That being said, of course some people just want sex. But as far as I'm concerned their opinions aren't all that valid here as objectifiers of women.

 

[And Man]

Oh boy, someone used the "F word". Seriously, don't use the term "friendzone". It has an awful connotation; it comes across as very "woe is me" and implies that the fault lies with the person that rejected you, even if you don't actually feel that way, and it's frequently associated with men who think they can court women by just being friendly. See:

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

Seconded. Acting the part of someone's friend in the hopes they'll fuck you, and being terribly hurt when they don't...don't do that.

Just use the term "rejected" instead, because it literally describes what occurred. (This is a bit of a digression, but I also hate when people use the term "love" to describe just crushing on someone hardcore.)


Anyway, first and foremost, give it some time. If the rejection just happened, then you should probably take a little time to cool off, because you're probably going to feel like shit. Once you're not overemotional from the rejection anymore and can think rationally about the situation, think about what you want. Are you hoping that one day (s)he'll reciprocate your feelings, and the two of you will fall in love and live happily ever after? Cut him or her off, because that's not going to happen. Do you think (after you take some time to come out of any overemotional slump you might fall into after getting rejected) you can eventually get over your feelings and actually maintain a healthy friendship with the person? Then stay friends.

 

[DarkRawen]

The people telling you to "let that feeling go away" are probably girls who friendzone people.

I have a small issue with the language here "girls who freindzone people" like their the ones activly doing it on [i/]purpose[/i]

That right there is the reason why people react so strongly to the term friendzone. Because it puts blame on another person as if wanting to like someone is a conscious choice. You either like a person romantically or you don't.

This, partly at least. I really don't like the term, or think it should even be a term, because of that there's already terms fitting it. It's called a one-sided crush, rejection or friendship, depending on what the situation is and where you're using the word. The term "Friendzone" makes it sound as if someone wishing to "only" remain friends is the same as sticking you in some zone that you can't proceed from, as if "just" friendship is some sort of punishment or failure. I certainly don't think that most people who use the term think of it like that, but it still makes me cringe.

As for the question that the OP asks, one certainly can ditch someone who aren't interested in them as anything else as a friend, it's possible, and, in some situations, it's understandable. However, if one do like that person as a friend and can put aside whatever feelings might surface from being rejected, why not stay friends? Friends are good, aren't they? Besides, worrying about bitterness and such, I'd say most friendships have their difficulties, whether they tend to surface or not.

 

[DrOswald]

Oh boy, someone used the "F word". Seriously, don't use the term "friendzone". It has an awful connotation; it comes across as very "woe is me" and implies that the fault lies with the person that rejected you, even if you don't actually feel that way, and it's frequently associated with men who think they can court women by just being friendly. See:

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

Seconded. Acting the part of someone's friend in the hopes they'll fuck you, and being terribly hurt when they don't...don't do that.

Just use the term "rejected" instead, because it literally describes what occurred. (This is a bit of a digression, but I also hate when people use the term "love" to describe just crushing on someone hardcore.)


Anyway, first and foremost, give it some time. If the rejection just happened, then you should probably take a little time to cool off, because you're probably going to feel like shit. Once you're not overemotional from the rejection anymore and can think rationally about the situation, think about what you want. Are you hoping that one day (s)he'll reciprocate your feelings, and the two of you will fall in love and live happily ever after? Cut him or her off, because that's not going to happen. Do you think (after you take some time to come out of any overemotional slump you might fall into after getting rejected) you can eventually get over your feelings and actually maintain a healthy friendship with the person? Then stay friends.

While I agree with you that the term friendzone should be avoided like the plague for the connotations that have come to be associated with it, rejected does not cut it as a description. Friendzone describes a very specific and very common type of rejection. It was a useful term before it was twisted into "***** didn't have sex with me, what a *****." There are specific difficulties when friendzoning has occurred and they must be very delicately handled.

And frankly, fault does lie with the friendzoner. True, they can't help it if they don't feel romantic toward the person. But simple rejection is not an instance of friendzoning. Friendzoning happens when a person rejects the other romantically and then still wants to maintain the relationship on their terms.

This is selfish. I have never been friendzoned, I have always been the one to friendzone. And looking back on it I was a massive asshole who ignored the other persons feelings because I didn't want to lose a movie buddy. It was a totally asshole, despicable, selfish thing to do and how I treated those people is one of my greatest regrets.

When you reject someone romantically but want to maintain the relationship in some form then you are treading dangerous ground and the situation must be treated with great care. If you can't do that it is better to break off the relationship completely.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh boy, someone used the "F word". Seriously, don't use the term "friendzone". It has an awful connotation; it comes across as very "woe is me" and implies that the fault lies with the person that rejected you, even if you don't actually feel that way, and it's frequently associated with men who think they can court women by just being friendly. See:

It is merely a succinct way of saying, "She just wants to be friends". That some people impose other meanings on it does not make it so.

But as I've said above, doesn't the fault lie with them? It's not a bad thing that they did, but aren't their feelings the wrench in the cogs so to speak? You want the relationship and they don't, ergo, it is their fault.

The only negative part is where you think they did something wrong for not loving you. That's like the assholes who call anyone a lesbian that doesn't accept their advances.

But in general, a person should be allowed to say they got friend zoned and feel sad about it just like they would at any other form of rejection. It does not necessarily mean that the person did something wrong, just that they did something which in this case is categorize the person as a friend-only.

 

[Lightknight]

The people telling you to "let that feeling go away" are probably girls who friendzone people.

I have a small issue with the language here "girls who freindzone people" like their the ones activly doing it on [i/]purpose[/i]

That right there is the reason why people react so strongly to the term friendzone. Because it puts blame on another person as if wanting to like someone is a conscious choice. You either like a person romantically or you don't.

This, partly at least. I really don't like the term, or think it should even be a term, because of that there's already terms fitting it. It's called a one-sided crush, rejection or friendship, depending on what the situation is and where you're using the word. The term "Friendzone" makes it sound as if someone wishing to "only" remain friends is the same as sticking you in some zone that you can't proceed from, as if "just" friendship is some sort of punishment or failure. I certainly don't think that most people who use the term think of it like that, but it still makes me cringe.

As for the question that the OP asks, one certainly can ditch someone who aren't interested in them as anything else as a friend, it's possible, and, in some situations, it's understandable. However, if one do like that person as a friend and can put aside whatever feelings might surface from being rejected, why not stay friends? Friends are good, aren't they? Besides, worrying about bitterness and such, I'd say most friendships have their difficulties, whether they tend to surface or not.

Friend zone is a succinct way to say a common concept. That you got rejected in a way that the girl still expects you to be friends. It's different than just rejection because an ongoing relationship is still desired/expected.

I get that people dislike the idea of rejection and feel bad for rejecting people. But they really need to get over feeling bad for rejecting people they aren't interested in. They aren't obligated to return affection. So yeah, they friendzoned a guy, so what? It's their prerogative to decide who they have a romantic relationship with.

Seriously though, what is the difference between friend-zoned and "she rejected me" as far as the "blame" is concerned? The only difference is the desired ongoing friendship implied in the former.

Sorry, but people who have a problem with this term just aren't justified in imposing disuse of the term on others.

 

[Lieju]

But as I've said above, doesn't the fault lie with them? It's not a bad thing that they did, but aren't their feelings the wrench in the cogs so to speak? You want the relationship and they don't, ergo, it is their fault.

What.

You could just as well say that it's the fault of the person who wants to have a relationship when the other person doesn't.
Let's say I just want to have a friendship but the other person goes and developes romantic and/or sexual feelings towards me and complicates things. Their fault.

Or if we are trying to pin down whose 'fault' it is, why not the person whose feelings aren't returned? It's their fault for not being their type, right?

Friend zone is a succinct way to say a common concept. That you got rejected in a way that the girl still expects you to be friends. It's different than just rejection because an ongoing relationship is still desired/expected.

You do realize you aren't helping, right?
One of the big problems people have is that it's viewed as a gendered term, something a girl does to a boy.
Then you have some people saying it is not, and that it just describes a situation, but then you for example are defending it's use and defining it as something a girl does.

 

[Hagi]

Depends on whether or not you want to be friends and nothing more really.

Friendship is a perfectly valid form of courtship and if a rejection occurs then the courtship ends, end of friendship. No foul on either party, just cut your losses and move on. If you have strong feelings for them then this is what I'd do.

Or keep the friendship, evolve the courtship into something else. Also perfectly valid albeit probably somewhat harder to do for most.

Nobody's obligated to a relationship with anyone. Nobody's obligated to a friendship with anyone. Rejections happen, both for relationships and for friendships.

 

[kortin]

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

Personally, I believe the best relationships come from friendships. I can't stand the idea of walking up to someone and saying "I'm sexually attracted to you, wanna fuck?" (or something to that extent), it feels forced and paleolithic.

 

[Suhi89]

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

I feel this is an all too common misunderstanding of what the friendzone is. It's not about sex, it's about wanting to be more than friends. How do I know? Well I've been what I've considered in the friendzone twice. Once was before I'd ever had sex and before I wanted it. I had a few subsequent relationships where I even turned down sex (for religious reasons) so it definitely wasn't about sex.

The 2nd time was a friends with benefits situation. So I was getting sex, I wanted a deeper relationship, she said, lets just be friends. She was perfectly willing to continue the sexual relationship but I couldn't cope with that. Both times hurt like hell at the time.

My point? I think that when people moan about the friendzone it's less often about sex and more about unrequited romantic feelings.

OT: I tried to stay friends both times, first time it didn't work, second time it did and we're still friends today. I think if you really value your friendship it's worth trying to stick it out. You have to bear in mind that it won't necessarily be your choice whether to stay friends. If you've made your feelings clear then the other party may feel uncomfortable continuing the friendship.

 

[Something Amyss]

I find it weird the way we can compartmentalise. This thread has people complaining that people have unfairly spun the concept of "the friend zone" to unfair places, while you have people complaining as though entitled and others who are assessing their relationships in terms of what the end result is "worth" to them.

In the end, I wonder if the women might be the ones better off if men moved on after "being friend zoned."

Oh, and, because I know it'll be an issue, I'll put a #notallmen hashtag here.

I have a small issue with the language here "girls who freindzone people" like their the ones activly doing it on [i/]purpose[/i]

That reminds me: did you ever put air holes in your friend zone?

 

[DarkRawen]

Snip

Rejection is rejection, as I said, I don't like the term because of what it implies. If people want that term for that exact situation, be my guest, I'll keep not liking it.

Besides, I said it makes me cringe, I didn't say: "You cannot use it." I said: "I don't think it should even be a term." And I explained what I associate with it, and what I think of it. I was stating my opinion of the term, not trying to impose disuse.

Seriously, read someone's post before you accuse them of something.

 

[Something Amyss]

Friend zone is a succinct way to say a common concept. That you got rejected in a way that the girl still expects you to be friends. It's different than just rejection because an ongoing relationship is still desired/expected.

Actually, I really don't see how this is different from most rejection in life. You will almost certainly be rejected more by the people close to you. It's part of life.

 

[renegade7]

Depends on what you mean by "Friendzone".

Does it mean you were attracted to her and she just told you as a polite rejection that she'd rather "just stay friends." That's not a "Friendzone", that's a polite rejection. In all likelihood, she isn't too interested in being friends either. In that case, it's probably best to just pull back and not go any further than a Facebook add. It's almost certainly not going to go anywhere, you'll just waste energy and embarrass/hurt yourself by pursuing it further. Best to move on and find someone who's actually interested.

But if you actually have become friendly, or were friends before you became interested, I think it would be kind of shitty to just can her because she won't go out with you. I think it can be much better to have platonic friends than to have a romantic relationship.

[quote/]They were never interested from the get-go. Our determination by paying rent, bailing them out during a tough time or even just being the "go to guy" (or girl) when they need a shoulder to cry on returns a big fat 0.

you shouldn't think of freindships (actual freindships) in numerical terms like that

"seeing your worth" has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything, if they don't wanna go out with you then they don't wanna go out with you, it doesn't matter why (or maby it does if its a chance for self improvment)

Well, it certainly has something to do with it. Who you decide to go out with isn't a completely random, feelings-based decision, especially when it comes to long-term situations. For instance, if you were starting to sense things were heading towards a "long range" situation, would you rather be with someone with a productive and mobile career or a cashier with no ambition? Would you rather be with someone who's smart, unique, and interesting or dumb, shallow, and boring? I think there are certainly some considerations of value that go into it.

But just because saying that a person can have more of certain appealing traits ("worth more") doesn't make it a meritocracy where relationships are given out based on the number of Boyfriend Points a guy has (Car +5, Job +10, Apartment +10, Axe body spray -3, is a nice guy +20, is a "Nice Guy" (TM) -50, complains about "Friendzone" due to a transactional and/or oppositional view of relationships -2000).

But if what you mean is that if someone's not interested that no amount of appealing qualities will change their mind, then yea, you're probably right.

 

[And Man]

It is merely a succinct way of saying, "She just wants to be friends". That some people impose other meanings on it does not make it so.

That's kinda how language works though. Regardless of their literal meanings, words and phrases still have connotations associated with them. Consider describing a person as "heavy" versus describing a person as "fat". Just because you dislike the connotation that "friendzone" has garnered doesn't mean that the connotation doesn't exist and that people won't react to that connotation and assume the worst, regardless of how the term was originally used. This is evidenced by multiple posts in this topic.

Friendzoning happens when a person rejects the other romantically and then still wants to maintain the relationship on their terms.

Friend zone is a succinct way to say a common concept. That you got rejected in a way that the girl still expects you to be friends. It's different than just rejection because an ongoing relationship is still desired/expected.

I don't think I've ever heard of a situation in which a person rejected someone else and then decided they couldn't be friends anymore because of the other person's romantic feelings (assuming that the rejectee actually accepted the rejection and didn't keep trying to pursue a romantic relationship).

 

[Nowhere Man]

how 'bout you don't make friends just for the sake of sleeping with them? Is that the best quality they have? That they could potentially have sex with you? if so then you're a shitty friend and should probably cut ties to spare them your toxic attitude.

ps. you is general.

Seconded. Acting the part of someone's friend in the hopes they'll fuck you, and being terribly hurt when they don't...don't do that.

Why do people always go here with this topic? Nothing like this was mentioned.

OT: People and relationships are so diverse so I don't think we can state one approach is the correct approach.

But if we change the question to "Is it possible after attempting a relationship with someone who doesn't return the feelings, but wants to be friends, to have a platonic relationship?" Then I would fully say: yes it is possible. I have some great friends who when I first met them I was interested in a relationship, and they obviously weren't, and other great friends who were really interested in me who I simply didn't feel the same way about. If I had had given up on the ones I liked, or tried to break ties with the ones who liked me I would be a less happy person today because of it.

Will it happen every time? hell no. But I think you would be missing out on some good friends if you always cut ties.

Thank You for being a voice of reason. It never takes long for these kinds of threads to devolve into hostility and finger pointing which is why I normally avoid them. Every relationship is certainly different but I would try and be friends, making new friends never hurt and is always an enriching experience. If that doesn't work out for whatever reason just be cordial and cut the ties. That's life.

 

[Mikeyfell]

The whole principle of the "friend zone" is silly to me.

Having a friend is better than having a girlfriend/boyfriend
If you just want to fuck someone then be strait with them. If you lead with asking for sex it will save you a lot of time and trouble.
if your intentions are to do the deed, and you lead by convincing them you want a relationship it's either going to go poorly for both of you or it's going to be a waste of efort

if you want to have a relationship with them friendship is a relationship (And in my opinion it's the better one)

 

[Lightknight]

What.

You could just as well say that it's the fault of the person who wants to have a relationship when the other person doesn't.
Let's say I just want to have a friendship but the other person goes and developes romantic and/or sexual feelings towards me and complicates things. Their fault.

Or if we are trying to pin down whose 'fault' it is, why not the person whose feelings aren't returned? It's their fault for not being their type, right?

I'm trying to explain that it being someone's "fault" doesn't necessarily mean that they did something wrong. Why isn't the relationship becoming romantic? Because the person rejected their advances in lieu of a platonic relationship. It is their fault that the relationship isn't becoming romantic but that's not a bad thing since that person isn't interested.

Anyone who is at fault is merely responsible for what happened. The issue here is that people assume a negative connotation when someone is rejected. As if the person rejecting did something wrong other than simply following their own heart. That is an erroneous way to look at it. So what if a girl rejects a guy? If she/he didn't have feelings for them then what other scenario do we expect from the person? Is it their fault that the relationship doesn't advance to go? Absolutely. Do they have justifiable reasons for blocking the relationship? Absolutely. Did they do anything wrong in deciding that they don't want that kind of relationship? Nope.

It is their fault in as much as the heart wants what the heart wants. Why does a dish filled with cilantro not get eaten by me? Because I don't like cilantro. How is me not liking cilantro somehow bad or evil? It isn't. But I am responsible for deciding not to eat it and I'm ok with that fact.

You do realize you aren't helping, right?

Is it my job to help? Must have missed that memo. I am disagreeing with the general complaint here. That's all the help I'm aiming to give. That concerns over this term is largely unwarranted and unreasonable.

One of the big problems people have is that it's viewed as a gendered term, something a girl does to a boy.
Then you have some people saying it is not, and that it just describes a situation, but then you for example are defending it's use and defining it as something a girl does.

I'm not saying it isn't a gendered term. I couldn't give two fucks from Friday whether or not it's a gendered term. It is typically (but not always) guys who complain about friend zone issues ergo it is rightfully gendered from a colloquial view though it can just as easily be used by the women who are also rejected in the same way by men. I have friend zoned a girl. I accept and own that fact. I wasn't interested and I'm not about to lead her on or to enter into a romantic relationship I don't want. There is nothing wrong with friendzoning people. Nothing at all.

I'm saying the term is apropos. It correctly and succinctly describes a situation of rejection with the additional information that the rejector wishes to maintain a friendly relationship with the rejectee. It does what language is supposed to do and no amount of complaining about it is going to make it less so. I'm sorry that the term makes you feel "icky" but it is not inherently different in the "icky" department from using the word rejected except in the more refined definition it conveys.

 

[And Man]

The issue here is that people assume a negative connotation when someone is rejected. As if the person rejecting did something wrong other than simply following their own heart.

It's not the negative connotation of rejection, it's the negative connotation of "fault". Saying that someone is at fault implies that they did do something wrong.