Female Friendzone?

[Andalusa]

Most of my friends are male. I've never been attracted to them at any point so I've never asked them out and been rejected. I do believe the mystical "friendzone" is something a person puts themselves in to. If a girl just wants to be friends, be friends, be happy and stop bitching about it, or maybe you just shouldn't be friends with them, cut your losses and move on.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, all I can say to that is their are more "traditional" opportunities available to men right out of high school. That is why more women are going to college, I agree, but that isn't an excuse. If you decide that you want to get a job instead of an education of any sort (including training in a trade or apprenticeship not just a run of the mill Bachelors degree) whatever your gender that that is on you. That isn't an excuse for lack of maturity or life experience.

I'm sorry, what are you on about?

People need to get out there, be rejected, collect some horrible dating stories like pokemon, live life. This is the only way to gain some f'ing perspective and maturity so that when you are ready to date someone who matters, you can cut through all the game playing bullshit. That is always my advice to people. If you put yourself out there and it works out great, if it doesn't then you lick your wounds, learn something and move on... it will just become another funny story you tell later in life anyway.

Still, I'm sorry, what are you on about? Are you trying to say there's a "checklist" of things you need to do before you can get your "has lived a life" badge? That there's a "one right way" to live a life? Really, this comes across as incredibly presumptuous.

I never got the memo. What's with all this "need to" deal with the relationship stuff? Nobody "has to" and an eventual relationship is not a necessary prerequisite to living a fulfilling life. I mean, I'm 30, I'm single after having walked away from a 7 year relationship, and what can I say, I do suffer the frustrations of the human condition, but what the hell, who doesn't. Still I don't see myself "settling down" nor do I see myself starting a family, like, ever. But I also don't see myself going out of my way to catch quick flings, because I don't dig all this "sexual alpha male" hogwash. I've tried that, too. It was boring.

Just because you did it the way you did doesn't mean that's the best way nor does it mean other people have somehow "failed" at life should they have chosen something else. But as I said before, this all looks like some serious overcompensating to me. It comes across like "Yeah, I've lived the life, right!.....right?" That's the vibe I'm getting, you can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but you're simply not convincing me.

 

[Substitute Troll]

I tend to think of it like this:

The "friendzone" mostly only exists for gamers or nerds in general. Or, atleast, they're the ones that whine about it the most.

I think the reason is because of the higher amount of male gamers/nerds that tend to associate themselves as such openly. Most male gamers know very few girls who can classify themselves as "gamers" to the same extent as themselves. And even fewer that the male gamer finds instantly compatible Thus, seeing the "best possible partner", the male gamer will instantly go bonkers-horny for said female. Only because she is attractive and likes what he likes, ignoring all other factors that decides if two people can like eachother. Now, because the female gamer has more options due to having a larger pool of male gamers to choose from, the chance that she has the same feelings is slimmer. Meaning, more guys end up in the friendzone simply because of numbers.

This is very easy to observe. Pick any group of friends that associate themselves as "gamers" or "nerds", the amount of males in the group will most likely outnumber the females, and ask around. You will probably find out that a couple of the male gamers/nerds have a crush on one of the girls. In some cases, there is only one girl in the group. The guys will then have crushes on the same girl. Because that's the only girl in their social circle.

You need an example? This is a real life one, no names for privacy: There's school with 3 different programmes. 2 of these are very close, and hang out with eachother a lot. In one of these 2 programmes, there are no girls. In the other one, there are 4, although 2 of them stay away from the rest. Out of the other 2, one is already with someone else. This leaves one girl between the two programmes who is A: availabe, B: attractive, and C: shares interests with most of the guys. As I soon found out, A LOT of the guys had a crush on this one girl. The girl however, liked none of them, because she has a larger pool of applicable males to choose from. This means the amount of friendzoned guys in this group is much larger than the amount of friendzoned girls. Extrapolate to the entire gaming community and you have your answer.

 

[TeapartyTokyo]

That depends a little, I think. I've always interpreted the friendzone as something that happens when you're kind of interested in someone, you start hanging out and you try to not make them think of you as only a friend, because that's how you get stuck there. And that's never happened to me. Actually, if I like someone they usually like me back, so no, I've never been in that 'nooo, now he only sees me as a friend, dammit!' situation.

That being said, guys should really be clearer on their intentions ^^; They complain about how girls give vague hints, but every time I've supposedly frinedzoned someone, I never even knew they were remotely interested. They never told me, and normal politeness really doesn't count as flirting in my book...
And one time I asked this guy out on a date, and then he gave me a present and I thought hey, he's into me! Then I never heard from him again all of a sudden and I figured I'd misread the intention the gift, until I got a boyfriend. Then, finally, he got pissed. Honestly, how was I supposed to guess his feelings..?

 

[robot slipper]

While the word "friendzone" usually makes my eyes roll, I can see where someone who uses it is coming from, and I don't know why it shouldn't apply to females also - we are quite capable of shooting ourselves in the foot too. Most of my life I have always been friends with the guys I fancy, and that got me nowhere. I could have stayed in that mode, which would have been a self-imposed "friendzone", and no one's fault but mine.

So, I then tried being subtle as a sledgehammer and that got me nowhere too. I was then told that guys "don't get subtle", so I tried being direct. That didn't work either. I think that avenue of life is just not meant for me, and I'm not going to mooch around blaming other people for it.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

Girls dont get friendzoned as guys do. I friendzoned a couple of girls and they quickly found someone else to hook-up with.

 

[ellieallegro]

Blah Blah... Snip

What's with all this "need to" deal with the relationship stuff? Nobody "has to" and an eventual relationship is not a necessary prerequisite to living a fulfilling life. I mean, I'm 30, I'm single after having walked away from a 7 year relationship, and what can I say, I do suffer the frustrations of the human condition, but what the hell, who doesn't. Still I don't see myself "settling down" nor do I see myself starting a family, like, ever. But I also don't see myself going out of my way to catch quick flings, because I don't dig all this "sexual alpha male" hogwash. I've tried that, too. It was boring.

Interesting stuff. Sounds to me like you are projecting your own need to validate your life choices, in this case, to be single. That's the vibe I'm getting. Never said you have to be in a relationship to be fulfilled nor did I go into any "alpha male" hogwash but thanks for sharing that you find it boring. I do as well.

Just because you did it the way you did doesn't mean that's the best way nor does it mean other people have somehow "failed" at life should they have chosen something else. But as I said before, this all looks like some serious overcompensating to me. It comes across like "Yeah, I've lived the life, right!.....right?" That's the vibe I'm getting, you can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but you're simply not convincing me.

Since this thread was about the self-constructed friend zone, I thought my contribution might offer another perspective as to why it's bullshit. Seems to me you are arguing that one can have a fulfilling life without a wealth of personal experiences (whether you share them with another person or not) that help you grow as a person and provide some maturity. If that is your opinion, well, good luck to you. I think you are wrong but that is the beauty of it: I don't have to convince you because you have already taken yourself out of the world that I choose to experience.

 

[bojackx]

Totally my own fault, and the 'friendzone' is a bunch of bullshit. If friendship is not enough for you. Act. Otherwise appreciate what you have.

But to be put into the friendzone, I would have thought one would have to act (i.e. confess their feelings to a person of interest) in the first place? What else can be done after that point?

OT: I don't see why the friendzone would be any different for women, us humans are all pretty similar. I can understand if it happens significantly less often for women though.

 

[mechalynx]

The friendzone does exist. I friendzoned 2 males in my life. The first one was a good guy, but I wasn't attracted to him and felt that he wanted a relationship because his family said it was time for him to have one. I did genuinely want to go on having him in my life, though. Ten years later, we are still friends. But apparently he carried a torch for me for quite a while, while still saying how great our friendship was.

The second one was a bad move on my part. I was hitting on him for 3 days, only to realise I wasn't really attracted to him once he started reciprocating. I thought I broke things off in time, but a few weeks later he said that he still had pretty strong feelings for me. He too was a really cool and good person and I wanted to stay friends, but it didn't work out at all.

Then there was the time a guy said he didn't want to ruin our friendship, when I manned up and told him I wanted to see him naked. We're married now.

 

[sarkeizen]

There's this weird myth that if you asked a girl out before you became friends, it would matter.

It doesn't.

If she would have dated you then, she would date you now (in most cases, obviously certain individuals may vary, but not to the insane degree some guys seem to think).

While I think virtually all of the "friend zone" talk by guys is whining and/or a sense of ridiculous male entitlement which simultaneously devalues the very person they claim to have affection for. I think it's worth pointing out that the assertion above that initiating a romantic relationship early on is irrelevant to it's success is quite possibly untrue.

There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that when people (men and women) encounter something that they don't know how to evaluate we draw on various, and somewhat irrational methods of assigning a value. Once this evaluation is set, subsequent evaluations will be made *relative* to the initial one. i.e. if the first price you see for a product is $1000 and the second is $200. You will consider the second price to be a good deal - even if it is the nominal price for the product.

Point being is that the belief that establishing yourself as a candidate for a romantic relationship to a particular person early on might have a significantly positive effect on successfully having a relationship with that person isn't unreasonable.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

While I think virtually all of the "friend zone" talk by guys is whining and/or a sense of ridiculous male entitlement which simultaneously devalues the very person they claim to have affection for. I think it's worth pointing out that the assertion above that initiating a romantic relationship early on is irrelevant to it's success is quite possibly untrue.

Point being is that the belief that establishing yourself as a candidate for a romantic relationship to a particular person early on might have a significantly positive effect on successfully having a relationship with that person isn't unreasonable.

You speak from a theoretical standpoint. You are considering the possibility.

I speak from an experiential standpoint. I am speaking about actual events that have happened. I spoke in my own experience, and in the experiences of those I've asked. A fairly small data pool, true, which is why I put in a notation that individuals may vary.

Yes, it is possible that there is an effect in some cases. However, since no women I've asked (in person) has EVER said it makes a difference for them (and it doesn't for me), I can extrapolate that time rarely makes a difference without other mitigating factors. My small data pool says that 0% of women consider getting to know someone a detriment to the future possibility of a relationship. I assume that some do care, just because of individuality, but obviously not most - not enough to make it a recognizable trend.

However, female friends of mine have used "I just want to be friends" as a polite way to say "sorry, you're too unattractive (or other negative opinion) for me to date." I think that polite let down is where the "friend zone myth" comes from.

 

[Reeve]

It's because, as my biology professor puts it: females are choosy about males and males compete for the attention of the females.

Lots of species of animal are like this.

 

[sarkeizen]

You speak from a theoretical standpoint. You are considering the possibility.

Not entirely and I'm not speaking any more theoretically you are. I'm speaking as someone who has read a fair amount of research on the subject of human value judgments.

I speak from an experiential standpoint. I am speaking about actual events that have happened.

...and you appear to think your opinion is both a) accurate and b) generalizable. Which is no more theoretical than what I stated. I'm extending reasonably well-controlled research on the way humans evaluate things to a domain that has not been researched. You are extending a poorly constructed experiment (your poll) to be the general case.

So I'm not sure where you get off considering your belief to be more reflective of reality than mine.

However, since no women I've asked (in person) has EVER said it makes a difference for them (and it doesn't for me), I can extrapolate that time rarely makes a difference without other mitigating factors.

There are three pretty naive assumptions you're making.

i) Just because you *think* it doesn't matter to you - doesn't mean it doesn't matter to you.
ii) Just because *people say* it doesn't matter to them doesn't mean it doesn't matter to them.
iii) Just because you think the group you talked to is randomized enough to be representative - doesn't mean it is**

The only way your conclusions are valid are if all THREE never happen. However if that were the case then all sociologists and social psychologists would need to do is ask a few of ther friends things like:

"Hey, would you be willing to speak up with a correct answer even though it was contrary to what everyone in your class thinks?"
"Would you electrocute someone just because someone in a lab coat told you to?"

...and yet, somehow not only have such things been studied but the answer was found to be counter-intuitive. That is to say, people WILL generally electrocute people when asked by someone in a lab coat (Milgram Experiment) and people generally WILL conform to a group opinion (Asch Conformity Experiment).

To bad your way doesn't work. Applying for grants is a PITA.

**Also even if your sample is well-randomized the confidence with which we can state that it's representative (or the percentage of the population it represents at some fixed probability) is bounded by the sample-size.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Not entirely and I'm not speaking any more theoretically you are. I'm speaking as someone who has read a fair amount of research on the subject of human value judgments.

First off, you didn't actually mention that you were talking about actual research you read. Your previous post sounded like baseless musing on the subject. Which is fine - this is an internet forum. I was just pointing out that I have actual experience with the subject.

Secondly, I also pointed out that my observations were from a very small pool and did not really constitute a large enough sample base - but it did have a fairly significant tendency.

I don't really think your somewhat hostile (at least in sections) response was really called for.

 

[Aramis Night]

Didn't realize that you meant college instead of high school. You do realize that most men don't go to college. Most of us do however at least get as far as high school.

Well, all I can say to that is their are more "traditional" opportunities available to men right out of high school. That is why more women are going to college, I agree, but that isn't an excuse. If you decide that you want to get a job instead of an education of any sort (including training in a trade or apprenticeship not just a run of the mill Bachelors degree) whatever your gender that that is on you. That isn't an excuse for lack of maturity or life experience.

Snip... a man devoting himself to one women doesn't have that benefit. In fact it hurts men who behave like this by making them look contemptible and pathetic to other woman. It becomes an all or nothing tactic. And your right, it is a bad idea.

But no one explains any of this to young men. Men assume women would respond the same way they would. The fact that boys are brought up to believe in the lack of social differences between the sexes doesn't help. A woman showing them that kind of devotion would be a dream for most men. It's misguided empathy. I don't see why we should blame them or mock them for it. Men just don't get any instruction on these matters growing up that doesn't come from cheesy, ridiculous sources.

Nobody is forcing men to be slavishly devoted to another without getting their affections returned; furthermore, nobody is forcing women to obsess about their weight and have umpteenth little bottles of half empty lipgloss in their bag either. Seriously, ladies, we need to break our goo collecting habit Not to get off topic...

Fear of rejection is not an excuse for a lack of experience and maturity at a certain age. Nobody explains this to young men you say? Men just don't get any instruction, you say? Nobody explains shit to ladies either. (Sarcasm meter reaching critical) You think there is some sort of grand gender conspiracy and that women get a super secret handbook on how to date and be in a relationship? Because mine got lost in the post.

People need to get out there, be rejected, collect some horrible dating stories like pokemon, live life. This is the only way to gain some f'ing perspective and maturity so that when you are ready to date someone who matters, you can cut through all the game playing bullshit. That is always my advice to people. If you put yourself out there and it works out great, if it doesn't then you lick your wounds, learn something and move on... it will just become another funny story you tell later in life anyway.

More "traditional" opportunities for men outside of high school? Guess that explains why men seem to be having so much trouble with being unemployed to the point of being 90+% of the homeless, not that college is the big mitigator people like to think it is. Seems many college grads are making it out on the streets too.

More women are going to college now because there is a lot more funding available for them to go to college from parents, government, or charities/foundations. Plus the fact that education methods are heavily slanted towards female learning methods makes it easier for them to get better grades. Meanwhile the boys are being medicated so they can sit still and not do anything that might get them arrested since damn near everything is illegal now that doesn't involve sitting on your ass all day. Kid's can't even have recess now. And even if they do, they are so limited in how they are even allowed to play, no wonder they are too apathetic to care about something as trivial as grades.

What does maturity have to do with fear of rejection? or experience? Today is the 19 year anniversary of the start of my first relationship. In that 19 yrs i have had about a dozen serious relationships and i have probably spent a total of 1 and a half years of that time single. I have plenty of life experience with relationships. I still fear rejection to the point where i have never asked a woman out. Does this negate my maturity? If that's true then by that standard most women are immature since its not often that women will take that initiative either.

And yes, women do have instruction on how to relate to the opposite gender. It starts when they start playing house and continues all the way to when they are buying those cosmo mags you mentioned. It may be bad advice, but its at least something, and its a whole lot more than what guys get. Is there even a mainstream parallel for men to cosmo?

 

[nicetomeetkita]

Without going into a lengthy explanation, I will say that I am a female who has been "friend-zoned" if I'm understanding the definition appropriately.

Hell, I had a crush on a male friend of mine for three years, and told him on at least one occasion that I would be willing to be in a romantic relationship with him, but he declined and stated that he just wanted to be friends. That's friend-zoning, right? Seems to be how guys describe it.

And, OP, I think there are generally more males on the Escapist forums that complain about relationships, etc. than there are females, so perhaps that could account for your observation of a disproportionate friend-zone ratio.

 

[sarkeizen]

First off, you didn't actually mention that you were talking about actual research you read. Your previous post sounded like baseless musing on the subject.

I did say that there is "a significant amount of evidence to suggest...". I don't know in what world that's "baseless musing" but where I come from we think it polite to at least ask a follow up question like "What evidence are you talking about?" before dismissing it as such.

I was just pointing out that I have actual experience with the subject.

...and I'm just pointing out that experience isn't a good thing to generalize with. It may at times be useful, expedient or necessary but it's rarely "good" for generalizing a contentious issue.

Secondly, I also pointed out that my observations were from a very small pool and did not really constitute a large enough sample base - but it did have a fairly significant tendency.

Either you thought your experience was sufficient to be the general case (or have significant likelihood to be the general case) or you didn't. If the the former then my rebuttal still stands, if the later then I don't understand why you bothered mentioning it. Perhaps you should have phrased it in considerably less strong terms. Your original (and follow-up) post left very little room for error on your part.

Also your terminology is kind of muddy. If your sample data is unrandomized then how is there any tendency to speak of (as far as the general case goes) and what possible measure of significance would apply?

I don't really think your somewhat hostile (at least in sections) response was really called for.

What? You just said you dismissed my position as "baseless musing" out-of-hand and I'm the one who's acting hostile? Do you not think that "baseless musing" qualifies as even a somewhat hostile term?

All of your posts on this subject come off as pretty arrogant - even by internet standards. You dismiss opinions which are contrary to your own. You seem to be claiming (now) that you knew your sample was small and poorly done** but still assumed it trumped the contrary position and you relegated any contrary experience to edge cases. All for an experience which, if you thought about it is probably impossible to have a control case for (i.e. you can't meet the same person for the first time twice)

If anything, what you are interpreting as hostility is a mildly stern correction to the needlessly arrogant tone and content of your posts.

**Also for the record sample size isn't everything. Randomization is equally if not more important. For example a T-Distribution can be used to produce a meaningful result for even small samples if the dataset is right.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

I notice you removed the comment about me backpedaling (which I still have in my inbox). Went back and read my original post, did you?

I believe in what I have observed. I have observed something. Someone else's observations may vary - which I admitted - but mine have been consistent. The Friend Zone rules are fictional.

You have other evidence? Fine. Sharing it is what this thread is about. I had no intention of criticizing anyone else's evidence. But YOU replied to ME. You didn't provide evidence and when I commented that your ideas did not conform to my experimental data, you yelled at me about "research".

When I offered you not one but two olive branches, suggesting that perhaps we simply agree to disagree, you called me arrogant.

Well, if you want arrogant, then here we go. Talking to you about this is no longer worth my time or attention. Welcome to my ignore list.

Goodbye.

 

[Vegosiux]

Since this thread was about the self-constructed friend zone, I thought my contribution might offer another perspective as to why it's bullshit. Seems to me you are arguing that one can have a fulfilling life without a wealth of personal experiences (whether you share them with another person or not) that help you grow as a person and provide some maturity. If that is your opinion, well, good luck to you. I think you are wrong but that is the beauty of it: I don't have to convince you because you have already taken yourself out of the world that I choose to experience.

Seems to me you're assuming there's nothing to experience outside the world you chose to experience.

And of course you'll be getting the vibe that everyone who chose a different path than you is covering for their own insecurities, I mean, that was obvious from the first post you made in the thread.

 

[Charli]

Totally my own fault, and the 'friendzone' is a bunch of bullshit. If friendship is not enough for you. Act. Otherwise appreciate what you have.

But to be put into the friendzone, I would have thought one would have to act (i.e. confess their feelings to a person of interest) in the first place? What else can be done after that point?

OT: I don't see why the friendzone would be any different for women, us humans are all pretty similar. I can understand if it happens significantly less often for women though.

I find that alot of men (to a lesser extent women but I guess myself is a prime example if you need it) that claim to have been 'friend zoned' have only done things that one could interpret as acts of friendship. Women can be just as uncertain/dense and oblivious or uninterested sexually/romantically as men.

And they continue to 'act friendly' in the unspoken implications that they are owed a relationship deeper at the end of this ...penance? offering? Without asking the girl/guy if they DO want to be in a relationship pointblank and without pussyfooting around the issue by trying to make the other pick up on it. And then when they don't get it, they whine about being in the friendzone or their friends make the same knee jerk 'haha' you're in the 'friendzone' hooting.

I have never confessed outwardly, I have dropped one or two hints. None were picked up. That's what the internet perceives as this dumb 'friendzone' malarkey. Otherwise the tension is dissipated and you make the call to either remain friends or see less of each other for a while over hurt feelings. I was a gigantic ninny, and probably could have landed a boyfriend out of it if I'd even tried. I didn't.

Understand a little better now? I notice you didn't quote the part where I loosely outlined and implied this. But this term is dumb and shouldn't exist, you are either friends (implying two parties involved here and not one belittling the other with terms that make it sound like they're some kind of caged bird and abused wretch in this deal) or you are in a relationship, or you have tried to make something more of it, failed, and now you are either friends or not friends.

It makes it sound like being a friend is some kind of sad obligation. Insulting to the term friendship and relieves cowardly people of any blame by turning it around on their person whom they have/had affection for. "YOU FRIENDZONED ME", well cry yourself a river, you have a friend, what a horrible thing.

I value my friends. Alot. Infact if I was to choose a trait to glorify myself on some kind of personality quiz, it would be loyalty to my friends. And this kind of degradation of it by making it sound like some kind of slur for a guy being used by a girl or vice ver ca makes me roll my eyes all the way to the moon in a basketball.


You're a friend. There is no zone. Kindly wear your 'I was too scared of ruining a good thing' badge with pride.

But that good thing is still good, I still like being friends with people even if I have had feelings for them at some point, you can work past it with time.