Female Friendzone?

[senordesol]

More like, both failed and one is just taking it harder. There's nothing different about the rejection except the reaction, at least in your statement of the difference. And perhaps frequency. But in neither case does the rejection itself change.

True. And I'm not suggesting that the rejection, in itself, is so incredibly different. But that the circumstances of its occurrence are different. Again, I have previously stated that the 'friendzone' is a self-imposed depressive state. One that stems from an inability to meet romantic needs with those of whom you have the most in common.

I further posit that those susceptible to this are not necessarily strangers to rejection -that, indeed, it is likely that they are quite used to rejection. The word that gets thrown around here too casually, however, is 'entitlement' used in the negative to suggest that people are expecting something that they never had the right to expect. I think that's inaccurate in this context.

Those who are truly 'friendzoned' do not go in to the relationship 'expecting' it to wind up in a romantic fashion. They hope for it, they work for it, they pine for it, and even obsess over it; but an 'entitlement' to it is generally not expected. The fact is: the one is simply more emotionally invested than the other. The fact that they would be considered unsuitable as a mate no matter what they do is a looming prospect (and, often, an outright fact) and that knowledge is painful.

It is one thing to be familiar with someone in passing and to then take a shot and to have that shot fall short. It is quite another to feel a deep emotional connection with someone, someone who brightens your day just for being in it, someone who occupies the fore-front of your mind, and to then attempt to share that connection with that person, and then to have those affections spurned, AND THEN to be left bereft, heartbroken, and so terribly alone with each passing day with them a loud and ever-present reminder that you will NEVER mean to them what they mean to you.

Yes, in both cases, a simple rejection is being issued, but the nature of that rejection with regard to the emotional, personal, and material investment to one of those parties is so completely and inescapably crushing that it deserves its own label.

How is this a 'friendzone'? You're talking about someone being unhappy because of constant rejection, but I'm not seeing how this matches up with any other use of friendzone that I've seen. Hell, your description doesn't even require them to be or want to remain friends.

Perhaps you should read it again, or read my other posts on the topic.

For expediency, however, I'll try again: The 'friendzone' is a self-imposed depressive and obsessive state of mind that stems from either the knowledge or the belief that your romantic needs cannot be met compounded by the fact or notion that even those with whom you have the most in common and are the most personally invested in are not interested in meeting those needs and never will be.

So that's my definition of it. I think it's both concise and accurate. I go on, however, to illustrate a typical example: One who finds themselves in the 'friendzone' is often very unlucky in love, and finds it difficult to (or outright cannot) find mates outside his circle of friends. Turning to his circle of friends, he may develop feelings for a suitable mate in that circle and will often times invest a great deal of time, energy, and resources in attempts to prove himself a worthy mate for her before declaring his intentions (if he ever develops the courage to do so). It is important to remember here that he is doing these things not so much to 'win' her as it is to demonstrate that he truly cares about her. So these are not 'investments' in the traditional sense (i.e. financing with the expectation of return), but are rather exposures of the very soul of his affections. He is figuratively giving a 'piece' of himself to her in the hopes that she will accept 'all' of him. Again, this is a hope, not an expectation. This is not understood as a transaction, but -in a sense- a proposal. To reject this, as it is to destroy any object of emotional attachment to any person (like a pet or a child), is extremely painful. Frustration at this is compounded when the object of desire frequently complains that her dalliances continually fall short in areas our 'friendzoned' chum feels he is more than adequate and the obvious alternative. Again, it is important to remember here that he is unlikely to be able to pursue other romantic interests. It is with this and ONLY this person of affection that he feels any strong connection on the most personal level.

The frustration here, however, truly stems -not from her rejection itself- but the suspicion or knowledge that he simply cannot measure up, no matter how hard he tries. That, because of some immutable personal failing on his behalf, she will never feel the same about him as he does her. She enjoys his company, and actively seeks it out. She enjoys his interests and enjoys the sharing of those interests with him. But she is not interested in him, because somewhere -somehow- he falls short of what she's looking for in a mate -and he hates himself for it.

Better?

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I've known that girls have had feelings for me, but they weren't reciprocated. I gently said as such to them. No big deal. Emotions happen!

 

[ellieallegro]

People put themselves in the "friendzone" by not being honest with their feelings when it first comes up. Personally, I have given and received the "just friends" status with alot of people. It's really no big deal you just move on to someone else who you fancy. As a bonus, this also frees you up for putting energy in pursing someone who might return your affection.

It's really pretty simple: When you start to have feelings for a friend... just say hey I enjoy hanging out and spending time with you and I would love to go out officially on a date. They will either say yes or no. Then you can be all hey that's awesome or no big just thought I would ask... movin on.

 

[hooblabla6262]

I would assume that attractiveness (or lack of) is the main cause of the "friendzone", cause why the hell would you be friends with someone whose personality you didn't like.
If someone tells you otherwise, they're probably lying.

Just because you like someone's personality doesn't mean you'll automatically like them romantically. I like my mom's personality but that doesn't mean I want to be romantically involved with her.

Yeah, this, most of my friends are guys. And I like all of them, but I wouldn't date any of them*.
It can be due to not being attracted to them physically, but other times it will be you just have no attraction to them at all, no chemistry. Or you like most of their personality but disagree with them strongly on things you find important.
Lots of reasons really.

*Luckily for me, despite what many people say, males can be friends with women without fancying them.

Exactly. There's a difference between loving someone as a friend and having romantic chemistry. While they aren't always mutually exclusive, they most often are. Otherwise everyone would be in the strange predicament of being in love with everybody they consider to be friends, which would just be really confusing, lol.

Yes, there are many different reasons. I'd say the most common one is attraction. You can call it "romantic chemistry", but that's just fancy talk for "I'm not attracted to them, but don't know what to call it".
And the mom example is poor, cause (and I'm just assuming here) there is very little in this world that would cause you to be attracted to your mother.

Now I'm not saying that you can't be romantically reluctant with some friends for reasons other than attraction. I have plenty of female friends with whom I would not date, even if they are good looking girls.
But I feel as if levels of attraction play a greater role in most cases than you are willing to admit, but maybe I just have warped expectations of people.

 

[Theminimanx]

Goddamnit I hate this "friend zone" bullshit about it being about getting into someone's pants. FUCKING STOP ASSUMING THAT.

Yes, that is the case sometimes, but to just unequivocally make that statement is a gross misrepresentation of the entire issue. A friend zone can be anything and it is indeed a legit problem for some people.


As for the topic, yes. Girls get friend zoned all the time. Half the albums Taylor Swift puts out addresses that. It's just not as big of an issue for them normally because they don't have to go through the "first move" stuff. And there is always another guy waiting in reserve who would happily take her. So more often than not, they can settle instead of being outright rejected.

And I say this as a social psychology major.

Don't you think that's a bit of a generalization?

I will say, though, that I agree in that I don't understand the outright hostility taken toward people in the 'friendzone'. I've been in the friendzone. Alot. It sucks. And had nothing to do with sex.

Is it really so inconceivable that you'd like someone as a person so much, that you'd like to know them better as a potential mate? Is the frustration and angst that stems from the knowledge or the fear that making a move might push them away forever really so unrelatable? Is the notion that someone could be so socially awkward and lacking in confidence (or looks) that the idea of seeking out other prospects is too daunting really so foreign?

I can easily see (and have seen) both males and females in the 'friendzone'. Be it a problem with your looks, social graces, or confidence; it's real fucking easy to land yourself there and stick.

Perhaps this will help you understand why everyone thinks that "a guy bring your friend = backstabber son of a *****"

Aww, you ninja'd me.
Well then I shall just take my video elsewhere...

OT:
I think she is making a good point about "nice guys" and the "friend zone" etc., so her video is definitely worth a look.

I'm kinda supposed to be doing homework now, so I don't have the time to watch a 30 minute video. Can you summarise what's in it?

 

[Lilani]

Yes, there are many different reasons. I'd say the most common one is attraction. You can call it "romantic chemistry", but that's just fancy talk for "I'm not attracted to them, but don't know what to call it".
And the mom example is poor, cause (and I'm just assuming here) there is very little in this world that would cause you to be attracted to your mother.

Now I'm not saying that you can't be romantically reluctant with some friends for reasons other than attraction. I have plenty of female friends with whom I would not date, even if they are good looking girls.
But I feel as if levels of attraction play a greater role in most cases than you are willing to admit, but maybe I just have warped expectations of people.

I really don't like calling it "attraction" because I feel like that doesn't delineate between pure physical attraction and romantic chemistry. I don't like conflating the two because I think it's more complicated than that. One does not necessarily lead to the other, but sometimes it can. I don't see them as the same thing, because if physical attraction on its own is always the silver bullet when it comes to true love then that doesn't explain why old couples can remain in love long into their golden years. There is an element of physical attraction to love, to be sure, but if that's all you're going to base your relationships on then they aren't going to have much staying power, and you're going to have to rely upon you're going to hope both of your standards change as you get up in years.

Also, I think the definition you provided for "romantic chemistry" is exactly the opposite of what I meant. It's not "I'm not attracted to them and I don't know what to call it," having romantic chemistry is "I'm attracted to them and I don't know exactly why."

 

[Moderated]

When I told my friend I didn't feel the same way, she just started avoiding me.

 

[senordesol]

I'm kinda supposed to be doing homework now, so I don't have the time to watch a 30 minute video. Can you summarise what's in it?

"'Nice guys'(TM) are not predators. They are not solely interested in sex. It is perfectly reasonable for them to be disappointed when romantic feelings they posses are not reciprocated. Those who believe otherwise are likely confusing explicit desires with implicit desires (i.e. They say they want 'Nice Guys', but would never ever *really* want one, and must construct these elaborate, malicious justifications [that they're really just after sex] in order to reconcile their world view)"

That doesn't really do justice to the excellent points she makes, but that's the gist of the video.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm kinda supposed to be doing homework now, so I don't have the time to watch a 30 minute video. Can you summarise what's in it?

"'Nice guys'(TM) are not predators. They are not solely interested in sex. It is perfectly reasonable for them to be disappointed when romantic feelings they posses are not reciprocated. Those who believe otherwise are likely confusing explicit desires with implicit desires (i.e. They say they want 'Nice Guys', but would never ever *really* want one, and must construct these elaborate, malicious justifications [that they're really just after sex] in order to reconcile their world view)"

That doesn't really do justice to the excellent points she makes, but that's the gist of the video.

Eh, I feel like a lot of people bring their anecdotes to the table on this one.
I personally (apparently) `friendzoned` someone who was all the bad things about Nice Guys and used the image of the poor rejected nice guys to get a lot of people to turn against me for not sharing his feelings.
I don't think you can say all friendzoned cases are X or Y.

EDIT: Btw I know you were just quoting but a lot of this conversation is either that friendzoned guys are victims or evil. I don't think it's either (obv cause I don't think it is a thing), I think everyone deals with rejection differently.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

What is this 'love' thing you speak of? Is it something Houstlings of planet Houston feel?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think its hard when someone who likes spending time with you and shares your interests doesn't like you 'that way' because you feel like 'Well why bother with me at all then if I'm so shit'

That's a hard thing to cope with but I don't think laying it on the other person is the correct thing to do.

 

[Ridrith]

And I say this as a social psychology major.

Internet credibility still zero.

It can and does happen.

 

[Hyper-space]

eh guys are usually more open/straight forward in the fact about being friend zoned, most girls i know wait for the guy to make a move or have 5 other guys hitting on them anyways, so they usually never end up getting "friend zoned", they just pick the 2nd draft pick instead

Holy fucking shit. You just nailed the proverbial nail on its motherfucking head. I rarely give out kudos, but I think its more than apt in this situation.

THIS is the gender-demarcation in experiences of the friend-zone. The whole gender axiom of the Hunter vs. the Prey is what explains why men are more affected by friendly rejection than females. Men who have other opportunities with females besides the friend that they are lusting after do not experience this, because they are more or less coming from the same perspective as females, that is, one of abundance of attention from sexual prospects.

 

[senordesol]

For expediency, however, I'll try again: The 'friendzone' is a self-imposed depressive and obsessive state of mind that stems from either the knowledge or the belief that your romantic needs cannot be met compounded by the fact or notion that even those with whom you have the most in common and are the most personally invested in are not interested in meeting those needs and never will be.

So that's my definition of it. I think it's both concise and accurate.

That's neither concise or accurate.

I think you might be bringing a lot of personal baggage to the conversation.

Why not go with the wikipedia definition:

The "friend zone" refers to a platonic relationship wherein one person wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not.

I've already admitted that I've got baggage in this conversation.

I feel the wikipedia definition fails to explore the real crux of the matter (the one pertinent to this conversation, anyway) and propagates my issues with the over-all dismissive attitudes toward people afflicted by such a condition. The notion that the friendzoned were only after sex or should 'just move on' is dismissive, insulting, and pretty damn cruel.

The pining and ever-present frustration deserves a mention as does the resentment and depression. Now, while we can debate the definition all day, I'm more interested in disabusing the notions that the condition does not exist at all - that heavily invested unrequited lovers unable to satisfy their romantic needs are simply being over-dramatic.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

There is no friendzone, it's just something people make up when they feel bad that they were rejected.

That is absolute nonsense. It is a term given to a state that does in fact exist. People who fall for friends but have their desire go unrequited (and thus can never be more than friends) are friendzoned.

 

[Phasmal]

There is no friendzone, it's just something people make up when they feel bad that they were rejected.

That is absolute nonsense. It is a term given to a state that does in fact exist. People who fall for friends but have their desire go unrequited (and thus can never be more than friends) are friendzoned.

Otherwise known as being rejected.
I just don't think it warrants a special term, especially one that is so often misused.
But I can agree to disagree on this.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh guys are usually more open/straight forward in the fact about being friend zoned, most girls i know wait for the guy to make a move or have 5 other guys hitting on them anyways, so they usually never end up getting "friend zoned", they just pick the 2nd draft pick instead

Holy fucking shit. You just nailed the proverbial nail on its motherfucking head. I rarely give out kudos, but I think its more than apt in this situation.

THIS is the gender-demarcation in experiences of the friend-zone. The whole gender axiom of the Hunter vs. the Prey is what explains why men are more affected by friendly rejection than females. Men who have other opportunities with females besides the friend that they are lusting after do not experience this, because they are more or less coming from the same perspective as females, that is, one of abundance of attention from sexual prospects.

haha thanks, i'm not saying its females faults, but society generally has dictated that males have to make the first move and are generally more open about "fancy'ing" females (more than one most of the time too) so women tend to know their options far more often than males do, and for all the males who don't think they are the proverbial "shit", tend to not express their feelings all too well.

i've had quite a few times happen where a female would tell me "oh back (years ago) when we first met, i thought you were really cute and i had a crush on you" and all i can think is "...why the HELL didn't you say something? you stuck yourself in the friendzone for no reason other than because i didn't make a move on you?"

I think its hard when someone who likes spending time with you and shares your interests doesn't like you 'that way' because you feel like 'Well why bother with me at all then if I'm so shit'

That's a hard thing to cope with but I don't think laying it on the other person is the correct thing to do.

very true, the only problem i ever have with this is, the opposing person that might be sending mixed signals (e.g. flirty texts, asks to hang out just 1 on 1, calls you cute/handsome/hot) even after the fact you tell them your feelings and such.

(this is a generalized reply, not just females or males that do this)

 

[senordesol]

I'm kinda supposed to be doing homework now, so I don't have the time to watch a 30 minute video. Can you summarise what's in it?

"'Nice guys'(TM) are not predators. They are not solely interested in sex. It is perfectly reasonable for them to be disappointed when romantic feelings they posses are not reciprocated. Those who believe otherwise are likely confusing explicit desires with implicit desires (i.e. They say they want 'Nice Guys', but would never ever *really* want one, and must construct these elaborate, malicious justifications [that they're really just after sex] in order to reconcile their world view)"

That doesn't really do justice to the excellent points she makes, but that's the gist of the video.

Eh, I feel like a lot of people bring their anecdotes to the table on this one.
I personally (apparently) `friendzoned` someone who was all the bad things about Nice Guys and used the image of the poor rejected nice guys to get a lot of people to turn against me for not sharing his feelings.
I don't think you can say all friendzoned cases are X or Y.

EDIT: Btw I know you were just quoting but a lot of this conversation is either that friendzoned guys are victims or evil. I don't think it's either (obv cause I don't think it is a thing), I think everyone deals with rejection differently.

Since 'Friendzones' are really parts of the human condition rather than a physical place to be objectively explored, yeah, I think a lot of people have to use personal anecdotes in order to get their point and perceptions across. I realize I may have been towing one particular line pretty heavily (one that was consistent with my own experience), but really the thing I wanted to get across was to dissolve the notion that FZ doesn't exist.

The 'whatever, just date someone else' attitude really shows a lack of understanding or care for the emotional weight unrequited love can put on a person. Yes: it is a self-imposed state, and yes: lashing out against the one who spurned you isn't fair (and I'm sorry it happened to you). But it's there! Some people never see it, and some people are good at avoiding it, but it is a thing! Some sympathy, rather than cynicism would not go amiss.

The emotions wrapped up in it can be crippling and are worth far more examination than 'eh, learn 2 deel wiht rejection n00b!'. Jeez, would you (metaphorical, not actual) tell a kid to 'just get over it' when the dog he raised from a puppy dies?

 

[Phasmal]

The 'whatever, just date someone else' attitude really shows a lack of understanding or care for the emotional weight unrequited love can put on a person. Yes: it is a self-imposed state, and yes: lashing out against the one who spurned you isn't fair (and I'm sorry it happened to you). But it's there! Some people never see it, and some people are good at avoiding it, but it is a thing! Some sympathy, rather than cynicism would not go amiss.

The emotions wrapped up in it can be crippling and are worth far more examination than 'eh, learn 2 deel wiht rejection n00b!'. Jeez, would you (metaphorical, not actual) tell a kid to 'just get over it' when the dog he raised from a puppy dies?

I still think you are presenting those people too much as victims.
And maybe some of them are. Obviously, everyone experiences heartbreaks, and some that stay with them for a very long time.
But being hurt does not entitle people to act however they want.

I don't feel I should have to sympathize with the person who was horrible to me, because they certainly didn't sympathize with me.

I would not tell a kid to `just get over it`, but I also would not sympathize if he decided that the dog dying meant he could strangle the cat.


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that there aren't people who are truly good and get hurt. There are. I'm just saying portraying this as a one-sided black-and-white issue is oversimplifying.

 

[Findlebob]

Its the most soul crushing state of existance a human male can live in.

I am bitter.