In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[Vegosiux]

Well, it is just about sex. That is the primary difference between romantic and platonic relationships. Sexual attraction/interest.

A "romantic", for the lack of a better word, relationship isn't "same as friends, but with sex". That would be that other loathed expression, "friends with benefits"[footnote]By my grandpa's beard, I hate that pretentious expression[/footnote]. Having been involved in several of each, I can pretty much state that just taking the sex away from the "romantic" one won't result in a "platonic friendship", because there are other commitments there too, a lot more compromise involved.

Oh, but I noticed you used the word "primary". On that, I suppose you could argue it's "mostly about sex", but not "just". I'd still disagree with you on that one, though, because sex isn't this magic wand that transforms one relationship into another.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A "romantic", for the lack of a better word, relationship isn't "same as friends, but with sex". That would be that other loathed expression, "friends with benefits". By my grandpa's beard, I hate that pretentious expression[/footnote]. Having been involved in several of each, I can pretty much state that just taking the sex away from the "romantic" one won't result in a "platonic friendship", because there are other commitments there too, a lot more compromise involved.

Oh, but I noticed you used the word "primary". On that, I suppose you could argue it's "mostly about sex", but not "just". I'd still disagree with you on that one, though, because sex isn't this magic wand that transforms one relationship into another.

Well, obviously, yes, but I didn't really want to start dithering around with various exhausting definitions of "love". In the formative stages of a relationship, when you are beginning courtship and the other person may or may not have just become aware of your affections (hence the mythical zone o' friends), there is no "love" yet. There is your sexual interest, and if they have no sexual interest in return it's going nowhere.

Sex is clearly not the only defining factor in a romantic relationship, but it's a limbo bar every romantic relationship must pass under in order to proceed to grow. Barring, of course, extraordinary rare cases that end up being the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[Vegosiux]

A "romantic", for the lack of a better word, relationship isn't "same as friends, but with sex". That would be that other loathed expression, "friends with benefits". By my grandpa's beard, I hate that pretentious expression[/footnote]. Having been involved in several of each, I can pretty much state that just taking the sex away from the "romantic" one won't result in a "platonic friendship", because there are other commitments there too, a lot more compromise involved.

Oh, but I noticed you used the word "primary". On that, I suppose you could argue it's "mostly about sex", but not "just". I'd still disagree with you on that one, though, because sex isn't this magic wand that transforms one relationship into another.

Well, obviously, yes, but I didn't really want to start dithering around with various exhausting definitions of "love". In the formative stages of a relationship, when you are beginning courtship and the other person may or may not have just become aware of your affections (hence the mythical zone o' friends), there is no "love" yet. There is your sexual interest, and if they have no sexual interest in return it's going nowhere.

Sex is clearly not the only defining factor in a romantic relationship, but it's a limbo bar every romantic relationship must pass under in order to proceed to grow. Barring, of course, extraordinary rare cases that end up being the exceptions that prove the rule.

Put in that perspective, what you said makes a whole lot more sense. I'm still not sure I'd agree with it, but as it is, I see no real flaw in it either. So I'll leave it at that and thank you for clarifying. Thanks.

 

[Terminal Blue]

And unfortunately many feelings can't be rationalized, or even if they can rational thoughts don't lead where you want. If you feel attracted to someone, unless said person is really wrong for you, there is little way to rationalize yourself out of it.

There is.

I've done it. Several times in fact.

It involves genuinely accepting that a person who is not actually attracted to you is, as far as you should be concerned in that moment, always wrong for you. Once you stop clinging to the power fantasy that maybe, just maybe you'll do or say the right thing and sex will result then the rest is remarkably easy. You grieve, and you move on. If you don't move on, it's probably because you're still clinging to enough hope that you haven't grieved yet.

And other way to actually control your feelings is by taking distance from the person of your desire and if anything that most obviously the most effective solution.

Again, I disagree.

It's only a problem if you're going to allow yourself to be constantly haunted by unresolved feelings as opposed to, you know, actually resolving them.

Now, emotional distance.. sure.. I mean, if you've been fantasizing about someone non-stop or if you've been bringing virtually everything in your life back to them that's probably something you should force yourself not to do (not hard, just takes some discipline). I understand the feeling of becoming obsessed with someone, but again.. it passes if you don't indulge it.

Physical distance, however, is meaningless. If I sit in my room for a month moping about how so-and-so rejected me, it's not going to hurt any less than just spending that month hanging out as friends in full acceptance that that's all that's ever going to happen so I might as well take what I can get.

That said, if bailing out is helpful for you then fine. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't act on your emotions, just don't pretend that they constitute an excuse.

I mean if someone pisses you off as hell isn't just ignoring said person the best way to manage your anger?

It depends.

If someone pisses you off because they're poking you in the eye with a stick, then yeah. It's probably best to get away from that and try and avoid them.

But if someone pisses you off because you simply feel insecure and inferior around them, for example, or because you're constantly afraid they will turn on you despite having no reason to believe that, then that's nothing to do with that person at all. It's an emotion which comes from you and one you'd probably do well to examine before you dump it on anyone else.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

So far I see a lot of the detractors pretty much equating the damn thing to just be about sex.

Fuck is wrong with you people?

Well, it is just about sex. That is the primary difference between romantic and platonic relationships. Sexual attraction/interest.

You may ask "Why is sexual interest perceived as necessarily sinister/predatory". You may ask "In the absence of romantic interest, why must we default to friendship?". You may ask a lot of things.

I'm not sure why you're asking "What the fuck is wrong with you people", though. Putting aside the shameful use of "you people", anyone equating "the damn thing" to be just about sex is 100% correct.

A relationship is a hell lot more than just sex.

 

[DarthFennec]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

Most of the time, in a 'friendzone' situation, it's excruciatingly clear that the other person doesn't think of it as anything more than a friendship, and that they would definitely reject you if you asked, and that the friendship would certainly not last after that. So, most people would rather cut their losses and preserve their friendship. Of course, with this option, there's always that small glimmer of possibility that the other person's feelings might change, given enough time. That rarely happens, which is why people get stuck in 'the friendzone' and end up having such a tough time of it. It's real, and it's infuriating to deal with.

Personally I feel the whole issue exists because of all the deep seated cultural guilt kids get fed about how sex and sexual feelings are naughty, so when they become consenting adults many find the concept of "casual sex" alien. In their heads they have been programmed by parents, religious establishments, and heck, even tons of childhood stories, television and movies, that sex always has to involve deep and meaningful feelings or it's something cheap and dirty.

You seem to be suggesting that sex is the only thing anyone can get out of a relationship, which is certainly not true. Sure, you can have sex without any deep or meaningful feelings, and if you're in that situation then by all means, go for it. But the vast majority of the time, when someone complains about 'getting friendzoned', it's because they have deep and meaningful feelings for a person that are unrelated to sex, and in that case there isn't much you can do about it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A relationship is a hell lot more than just sex.

That's a fascinating obvious truth, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to anything I said.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I was in the "friend zone" of a guy for the better part of my late teens (from about age 15 to 19). I was head over heels in love with this guy for four years and he made it amply clear that he cared for me a great deal, but also that he had a girlfriend and that we could be nothing more than friends. And you know what? With the benefit of retrospect it was the best friendship I ever had.

I wasn't "friend zoned". No one is ever "friend zoned". We are put in a situation where we are told that what we want isn't available to us so we can either accept the middle ground or walk away. I choose to stay in the friend zone because this guy was so important to me that even without a romantic relation between us I still wanted him in my life. He choose to be my best friend (to the chagrin of his girlfriend, at times) and we both got a lot out of that friendship.

Those are my biggest issue with the ideas of "friend zoning":
1. That friendship is some form of consolation prize for not getting the romantic relationship. If you really love this person, then you will still care for that person even if you are friends and your friendship can be a beautiful thing in and of itself. Apart from the sex and intimacy there's very little you can't do as friends that you would only do in a relationship. Besides, if you can't appreciate a friendship with someone you claim to be in love with, it probably isn't love you are feeling or a romantic relation that you want.
2. That "friend zoning" is an active and malicious act done upon you. You want something, you can't get it. That's life. That someone won't provide you something they can't give (love) is not malicious or bad. The problem is that people who talk about the "friend zone" often end up sounding like entitled, egocentric whiners. They want something from someone and when they don't get it they make it seem as if a grave injustice has been enacted upon them. They've done x and y and z and ye they don't get that love they feel they deserve for it. The realization has to be that no one owes love because I am nice to them.

Part of the problem is that "friend zoning" is often tossed around by Nice Guys (the not so nice kind). To compare their idea of love to a slot machine seems apt. They seem to think that if you just feed the machine enough nickels (do Nice Guy Friend Stuff) you will eventually win (Get the Romantic Relationship). If you can't appreciate a friendship with someone you claim to love, chances are you aren't very in love.

 

[Realitycrash]

Well, it is just about sex. That is the primary difference between romantic and platonic relationships. Sexual attraction/interest.

A "romantic", for the lack of a better word, relationship isn't "same as friends, but with sex". That would be that other loathed expression, "friends with benefits"[footnote]By my grandpa's beard, I hate that pretentious expression[/footnote]. Having been involved in several of each, I can pretty much state that just taking the sex away from the "romantic" one won't result in a "platonic friendship", because there are other commitments there too, a lot more compromise involved.

Oh, but I noticed you used the word "primary". On that, I suppose you could argue it's "mostly about sex", but not "just". I'd still disagree with you on that one, though, because sex isn't this magic wand that transforms one relationship into another.

Eh, for me, I'd say it is. I have several (female) friends which I love just as much, if not more, than I have loved previous romantic partners. The only thing that differs our relationships from the romantic part it that we aren't having sex. I trust them, I find them funny, I enjoy being around them, etc. If I had been physically attracted to one of them then I'd call it 'having romantic feelings for them'.
Sorry, but I don't see how there are any 'special' feelings in a relationship that aren't present in a friendship except convoluted by hormones.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

Charge the beaches of Normandy!

If you are cut down. Prepare for the next campaign (so I agree with you).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Here's the thing.. a lot of, if not almost all men, are easy to lead by their nose. It doesn't take much to feign interest in a guy and make obscure promises or even tell flat out lies, to make us do things.
If there was a rape culture, this would be the female equivalent of it. Using another person to get what they want.

This is possibly the most misandristic thing I've read all day. Not only that, I am pretty confident that it is patently untrue outside of the teenager demographic (and teenagers are kind of easy to trick, irregardless of gender, due to their youth, hormones and naivety). A majority of men are quite likely to question why a woman is suddenly showing interest in them (while asking for favors), especially if these men are in a functional relationship with someone else. To suggest that men are either a) stupid or b) too controlled by their sex drive to realize a woman is leading them on reeks of preconceptions to me.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

Here's the thing.. a lot of, if not almost all men, are easy to lead by their nose. It doesn't take much to feign interest in a guy and make obscure promises or even tell flat out lies, to make us do things.
If there was a rape culture, this would be the female equivalent of it. Using another person to get what they want.

This is possibly the most misandristic thing I've read all day. Not only that, I am pretty confident that it is patently untrue outside of the teenager demographic (and teenagers are kind of easy to trick, irregardless of gender, due to their youth, hormones and naivety). A majority of men are quite likely to question why a woman is suddenly showing interest in them (while asking for favors), especially if these men are in a functional relationship with someone else. To suggest that men are either a) stupid or b) too controlled by their sex drive to realize a woman is leading them on reeks of preconceptions to me.

I believe Smilomaniac is actually being derogatory to both genders; suggesting that women can be manipulative to the point of maliciousness, whilst also stating that men are easily manipulated. Obviously, this can be said of a percentage of either gender, but I hold this to be a very cynical perception of the human condition.

What I find most curious is Smilomaniac's apparent belief he is likely to be easily manipulated, despite the insight he holds on the signs and context of said manipulation. Is this an inference that he believes men are incapable of higher thought when the possibility of sex is provided? I am genuinely puzzled that someone could believe they have so little control over their lives.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I believe Smilomaniac is actually being derogatory to both genders; suggesting that women can be manipulative to the point of maliciousness, whilst also stating that men are easily manipulated. Obviously, this can be said of a percentage of either gender, but I hold this to be a very cynical perception of the human condition.

What I find most curious is Smilomaniac's apparent belief he is likely to be easily manipulated, despite the insight he holds on the signs and context of said manipulation. Is this an inference that he believes men are incapable of higher thought when the possibility of sex is provided? I am genuinely puzzled that someone could believe they have so little control over their lives.

The misogynist part of his post is not lost on me, it just pales in comparison to how little stock he apparently puts in men's ability to control their libido. I, just as you, am puzzled at how can hold this belief, especially if he knows and understands the context of the manipulation going on.

 

[Micalas]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

> Met a girl on a dating site (paid site not some bullshit like Zoosk)
> Hit it off great and spent almost every waking moment together
> Decided 3 months later she just wanted to be friends3

 

[krazykidd]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

> Met a girl on a dating site (paid site not some bullshit like Zoosk)
> Hit it off great and spent almost every waking moment together
> Decided 3 months later she just wanted to be friends3

So you were relationship for 3 months , then she said let's just be friends. That's not being " friendzoned" . She just broke up with you and asked if you can continue being friends. To get friendzoned, you can't get the girl . If you got ( or had ) the girl it's doesn't count as friendzone .

What friendzone apparently is ( i say apparently , because like i said , i don't believe in friendzone) is when you want to date a girl, and she says no because she doesn't want to change/ruin the friendship. Which is just a nice way of saying , she doesn't want to date "you".

 

[Micalas]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

> Met a girl on a dating site (paid site not some bullshit like Zoosk)
> Hit it off great and spent almost every waking moment together
> Decided 3 months later she just wanted to be friends3

So you were relationship for 3 months , then she said let's just be friends. That's not being " friendzoned" . She just broke up with you and asked if you can continue being friends. To get friendzoned, you can't get the girl . If you got ( or had ) the girl it's doesn't count as friendzone .

What friendzone apparently is ( i say apparently , because like i said , i don't believe in friendzone) is when you want to date a girl, and she says no because she doesn't want to change/ruin the friendship. Which is just a nice way of saying , she doesn't want to date "you".

I also forgot to mention that she said that "we were never dating."

 

[Blow_Pop]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

I simultaneously agree and disagree.

I agree in the sense of "if a person doesn't want to date another person they are then friendzoned" doesn't exist.

However, if you look at it, technically speaking you are in a "friend zone" with every single one of your friends. And that's my disagreement.

Back onto the topic at hand though, to answer the OP:

Or is it simply a refuge invented by the possessive, who seek to validate their inability to secure their prize?

This ^

The people who mostly use it want to validate their inability to secure their "prize" and make the person who isn't interested in them the villain. Because heaven help us, someone wasn't attracted to them and told them so and that's the end of the world as they know it because they were attracted to them. It's why it makes me uncomfortable to date anymore and uncomfortable to let a person interested in me pay for anything unless we have a strict agreement that they are paying this time and next time I am. Though honestly, I prefer paying for my own shit. If I can't afford it, I'm not getting it. Simple as that.

 

[AsurasEyes]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

I find the friendzone, and those who complain about being constantly "friendzoned" as annoying as any other guy, but it's still an actual thing, it exists. I really wish people would stop posting in threads like this going on about how it isn't a thing and the people at hand are just pussies.

It's not that, it's blaming some fictional state of existence for your problems. It's depressing, like blaming Santa for giving you Black Plague. The friendzone doesn't exist, and it's perpetuated by people who cannot just ask someone out. I'm socially awkward as one would expect, but I wouldn't ever blame my lack of girls on the a nonexistent entity. I just say, "Well, I'm just shy. Guess I should work on that"

 

[Catrixa]

"Friendzone" is such a painfully silly word. Without digging into the nitty-gritty of internet definitions for made-up words (if there's a Webster definition out there, we all need to be using it), it implies the situation "I was first in one zone, then I was moved to the friendzone." It often doesn't even matter how you "got there," since most people just assume someone (or based on this thread "something") put you there. You did not move yourself to this zone, therefore it is not your fault.

Do people who get to this place ever think "hey, maybe they're right, maybe we're better as friends?" No, they think "that jerk put me in the friend zone! How dare they!" The friendzone is a safe place where you are blameless, where you cannot help how you feel (correct) and how you react to how you feel (not correct).

I was in the "friendzone" once, I guess. I thought of it as: "hey, I really like this guy, but I guess he doesn't like me back. But he's still a pretty cool dude, and we have fun together, so I'd still like to be friends." After awhile of not getting over this and moving on, I told him about my feelings, and we decided that it would be best to work through them so we could be friends. It was a hard thing to do, but it was relieving to say "I like you, but respect that you just want to be friends. Let's work together on that." Then, because the "friendzone" isn't a magical trap that sucks people in and keeps them there forever (and because life is both messy and weird), we eventually got married.

Tl;dr: The "friendzone" is a made-up fantasy land where you are blameless for your feelings and how you react to them. If taking responsibility for yourself is too hard, you've been friendzoned. If you're up for a challenge, you try get over it and either be their friend or move on.

 

[krazykidd]

There is no such thing as friendzoned . People need to man up and stop being afraid of rejection. Ask a girl out . 50/50 chance she says yes . If she says no , move on. How is this so hard? I swear i have never heard so much "friendzone" talk, than on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

> Met a girl on a dating site (paid site not some bullshit like Zoosk)
> Hit it off great and spent almost every waking moment together
> Decided 3 months later she just wanted to be friends3

So you were relationship for 3 months , then she said let's just be friends. That's not being " friendzoned" . She just broke up with you and asked if you can continue being friends. To get friendzoned, you can't get the girl . If you got ( or had ) the girl it's doesn't count as friendzone .

What friendzone apparently is ( i say apparently , because like i said , i don't believe in friendzone) is when you want to date a girl, and she says no because she doesn't want to change/ruin the friendship. Which is just a nice way of saying , she doesn't want to date "you".

I also forgot to mention that she said that "we were never dating."

So what exactly did you do for 3 months? [small] and who makes friends on a dating site?[/small]