In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[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

Not exactly on topic of the thread, but I always feel the need to point out that just because the only options a woman can give to that question are yes and no does not mean that there is a 50% chance as to which she will say. Women are not coin flips.

I just ment there's two answers she can give . Yes or no . Was writing 50/50 really so offensive? Given that we are talking about hypothetical women in which no background info is given? I mean of course a personthat hates you will say no , just as a person who is really into you, will say yes ( disregarding outside factors of course).

 

[Raikas]

Working out and bodily development in general is also separate from appearance.

Eh, you've never seen an obese person lose weight or a skinny person gain and thought they looked more physically attractive afterwards? That kind of thing isn't primarily about fitness (so it's not that the people checking them out now are thinking "they could carry me out of a burning building") - people just look different when they don't look round or gaunt.

Foul bodily odors have little to do with physical attractiveness- such a state indicates a diseased condition, aversion to personal hygiene or the physical inability to maintain cleanliness- brought on, for example, by extreme poverty. Running water really is a luxury that the developed world takes for granted.

Yes, but sometimes you're in the developed world (or a privileged corner of the developing one), and so you know that the person in question has access to running water - there's a difference between someone who is unable to keep themselves clean (due to poverty, aversion due to mental illness, and so on) and someone who just refuses to wash their hair or do their laundry because of laziness or a lack of consideration to others.

 

[Silverbeard]

Working out and bodily development in general is also separate from appearance.

Eh, you've never seen an obese person lose weight or a skinny person gain and thought they looked more physically attractive afterwards? That kind of thing isn't primarily about fitness (so it's not that the people checking them out now are thinking "they could carry me out of a burning building") - people just look different when they don't look round or gaunt.

Foul bodily odors have little to do with physical attractiveness- such a state indicates a diseased condition, aversion to personal hygiene or the physical inability to maintain cleanliness- brought on, for example, by extreme poverty. Running water really is a luxury that the developed world takes for granted.

Yes, but sometimes you're in the developed world (or a privileged corner of the developing one), and so you know that the person in question has access to running water - there's a difference between someone who is unable to keep themselves clean (due to poverty, aversion due to mental illness, and so on) and someone who just refuses to wash their hair or do their laundry because of laziness or a lack of consideration to others.

I will admit that, in all my limited years, I have not seen an obese person become thin (or at least of a healthy weight)- except on television programs and advertisements and the like.
Or perhaps we are thinking of different things: when I hear 'obese', I think of one who is incapable of moving without mechanical assistance. Maybe you have a different image.
I have seen many people- men and women- become more physically fit after a period of regimented exercise but none of them have looked more physically attractive afterwards. Oddly shaped faces, for example, will always be oddly shaped. Cross-eyed folks will not lose that trait, no matter how hard they work. We all make do with what we are born with and exercise, or a lack thereof, does not change that.

The poverty example was just that- an example. Extreme hydrophobia, as another example, can physically prevent people from showering or just bathing at all. And surely a well-sculpted fellow who refuses to maintain personal cleanliness will be just as repulsive as a trollishly ugly fellow who is always perfectly groomed?

My base point is that physical attractiveness, body odor and personal fitness are all separate things- one can score well on all three, or on a few, or on none at all.

 

[Hattingston]

I think that, in certain cases, "friendzoned" is just another word for "unrequited love".

Guy loves girl. Guy professes his love. Girl doesn't return his feelings = He is a friend to her = He is in the "friend" category = He is in the "friendzone".

Or...

Girl loves guy. Girl professes her feelings. Guy doesn't return her feelings = She is a friend to him = She is in the "friend" category = She is in the "friendzone".

Yes, thank you, exactly this. This is the only way I've ever heard the term friendzone be used by people offline. No blame or fault is placed on the opposite party, it's a lighter way of saying unrequited love.

The argument I see most often against that is that if that's the case just use the term "unrequited love," since it doesn't carry the same baggage. I disagree with that sentiment because unrequited love is unrequited LOVE not unrequited like, not unrequited I think you're kind of attractive. Unrequited love implies love, while friendzone only implies an ambiguous amount of feelings. Rejected doesn't work either, because rejected doesn't say anything about feelings. I could be rejected by that random person I hit on at the bar who I wanted a one night stand with. If someone says that they're friendzoned, then you know that they actually had some feelings for that person.

Friendzone also communicates that the object of the friendzoned person's interests wishes to remain friends, which can be difficult. If you have feelings for someone and you've just been rejected by them, you're going to feel a hurt, and from what I've seen, hanging out with that person while still being just friends is only going to exacerbate that. Someone who is friendzoned is probably going to want to spend some time away from that person so they can get over their feelings and then be friends with them.

I am against blaming people for not wanting a relationship, and for thinking literally anyone owes you a relationship, and all of those sorts of things. Those are bad. I think that the term friendzone can be (and in my experience is) used widely without any of that baggage attached.

 

[Echopunk]

I will admit that, in all my limited years, I have not seen an obese person become thin (or at least of a healthy weight)- except on television programs and advertisements and the like.
Or perhaps we are thinking of different things: when I hear 'obese', I think of one who is incapable of moving without mechanical assistance. Maybe you have a different image.
I have seen many people- men and women- become more physically fit after a period of regimented exercise but none of them have looked more physically attractive afterwards. Oddly shaped faces, for example, will always be oddly shaped. Cross-eyed folks will not lose that trait, no matter how hard they work. We all make do with what we are born with and exercise, or a lack thereof, does not change that.

The poverty example was just that- an example. Extreme hydrophobia, as another example, can physically prevent people from showering or just bathing at all. And surely a well-sculpted fellow who refuses to maintain personal cleanliness will be just as repulsive as a trollishly ugly fellow who is always perfectly groomed?

My base point is that physical attractiveness, body odor and personal fitness are all separate things- one can score well on all three, or on a few, or on none at all.

We're hard coded to look for certain things in our perspective mates/partners. Good teeth are a sign of health and wealth. Good shoes are a sign of wealth. There is an old saying, the short man looks a lot taller when he is standing on his money.

Symmetry is also important. The closer one's features adhere to the golden ratio, the more attractive they seem.

I even read something about height being a factor. Women were likely to have short term relationships/affairs with taller men, but were less likely to engage in long term relationships with them.

So, if you are like me and happen to be well over six feet tall, with some British ancestry, wear beat up steel toe work boots regularly, and have had a broken nose in the past that you set yourself on one or more occasions, chances are you should spend a little time in the gym just to help average things out.

But worrying about physique/appearance too much is not right either. Confidence is key. People don't have to be perfect, they just have to be comfortable with themselves.


And, to those who are getting "friendzoned," try changing things up a little. One of my long term female friends actually asks me to wear a hat whenever I am around her when have my hair cut a certain way, on account of her wanting to jump me due to the haircut. She's joking, of course, but you never know.

People should be comfortable with themselves, but realize that certain decisions they make about the way they dress and act, while they may be valid choices for them, are going to cut them off from some prospective partners.

Supposedly, sometimes being too clean can be a negative. Smell is one of the most important aspects of attraction. If you're always covering up/soaping away your body's natural pheromones, you run the risk of being chemically inert to a prospective partner. I've never tried it though, on account of not wanting to skimp on my own hygiene routine.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

For the life of me, I really don't get this whole 'Friendzone" thing, or why it has somehow generated 7 pages of responses in less than 2 hours.

It's really pretty simple: you like a girl. She likes you from a basis of 'you're fun to hang out with, fun to talk to' etc. but doesn't find you attractive in the sense that she'd like to pursue a romantic relationship, so she'd simply like to be "just friends".

I think the problem we run into so often is that media has so frequently enchanted us with this plot-line (count how often you've seen something similar to this in the movies or TV): super hot-girl is dating a douchy frat boy/football jock/'bad boy' and then in the end, she finally realizes that the 'nice guy' she's known for so long is really the man for her, and she dumps Douchy McFootball and ends up with the nice guy.

When you're exposed to it so often, it creates the idea (whether conscious or subconscious) in a lot of guy's heads that if they simply be really, really nice that the sex will simply fall into their lap. Obviously that doesn't really work in real life.

All this comes down to, as far as I can see, is guys who just don't understand how attraction works.

 

[obscuredlimits]

I just don't get the...well...the claims that the 'Friendzone' doesn't exist.

For far as I can tell, it's just modern parlance for the phrase 'unrequiteded love'. You care about someone, you're happy when you're around them, you miss them when they're gone, you make excusses to spend as much time as possible with them; you want to take it further, but they don't. So far as they're concerned; you're a friend and nothing more.

I see nothing predatory or dehumanizing about being sad and frustrated about that.

Well said. You can't blame the second person of the unrequited love connection, as one cannot help but follow their heart; yet people feel the need to put a new label on it and blame that person anyways. If you find yourself "in the friendzone" or on the other side of unrequited love, there are three options: continue to try, decide to stay friends and hope to move on, or stop associating with them.

 

[Nurb]

Huh, so women never fall for a male friend who isn't interested in them, and if they do by some far off chance, they can turn off their feelings for them immediately after the friend tells them they aren't interested, and it's never awkward... EVER.

That's the only reason I can find for demonizing a single gender's natural feelings over love that isn't returned.

 

[coppah20HE]

I don't understand why people overcomplicate the definiton of the "Friendzone"
Are far as I see it, It's literally just a new-age term for unrequited love.

Hell, I sometimes classify myself as being in the "friendzone", with one of my best friends :/

 

[Lieju]

I don't understand why people overcomplicate the definiton of the "Friendzone"
Are far as I see it, It's literally just a new-age term for unrequited love.

Hell, I sometimes classify myself as being in the "friendzone", with one of my best friends :/

Pretty much this. People are trying to tie way too much into it.

Yes there can be people who are bitter, or idiots who get upset because someone doesnt put out, but the core of it is that it is just a more modern/shorthand version of unrequited love. Hell it isnt even only a guy thing like some kiddos seem to think. I have a few female friends who have been friendzoned.

It exists, it is a thing, just try not to overcomplicate it ok kids?

Well, the problem is that people use the word differently, which is evident just looking at this thread.

And some definitions of it include the belief that women (sometimes men) have these 'friendzones' where they put people they feel like keeping around for favours, and if they prove themselves they can be upgraded to a romantic interest.

Which sometimes happens, sometimes friendships turn into romantic relationships, but there might be all kinds of assumptions at work here, like the common assertion that men and women can't be just friends.

I just don't use the word at all. If I mean unrequited love, I say 'unrequited love'.

 

[Raikas]

I will admit that, in all my limited years, I have not seen an obese person become thin (or at least of a healthy weight)- except on television programs and advertisements and the like.
Or perhaps we are thinking of different things: when I hear 'obese', I think of one who is incapable of moving without mechanical assistance. Maybe you have a different image.

The medical definition of obese is much lower than your personal image - it's just 20% above ideal weight for height, so most of those people can still get around.

I worked with a guy (rotund but totally mobile) who went on a diet and lost 52kg (115lbs) - he looked like a totally different person in the end. When saw him for the first time in 8 months I wouldn't have recognized him at all - and the comment that I heard from a lot of people was that he now looked like his old self's "more attractive younger brother".

 

[Silverbeard]

I will admit that, in all my limited years, I have not seen an obese person become thin (or at least of a healthy weight)- except on television programs and advertisements and the like.
Or perhaps we are thinking of different things: when I hear 'obese', I think of one who is incapable of moving without mechanical assistance. Maybe you have a different image.

The medical definition of obese is much lower than your personal image - it's just 20% above ideal weight for height, so most of those people can still get around.

I worked with a guy (rotund but totally mobile) who went on a diet and lost 52kg (115lbs) - he looked like a totally different person in the end. When saw him for the first time in 8 months I wouldn't have recognized him at all - and the comment that I heard from a lot of people was that he now looked like his old self's "more attractive younger brother".

Medical definitions of words very rarely match popular definitions of the same. 'Obese' tends to have negative connotations and calling one 'obese' lays those connotations on the poor chap. Maybe I'm just wrong in how I think.
Anyway, a 52 kilo loss certainly implies several things about a fellow: The dieter must have incredible strength of will to maintain such a rate of loss consistently and/or the dieter now has a greater range of physical capacity than previous. Either one of those traits would be desirable, regardless of how conventionally attractive the bone structure of the dieter's face is. True?

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

In short, for those who live by the rule of tl;dr: the next time you meet someone who you suspect of (or confesses to) considering themselves friendzoned, give them advice on how to say what they really want to say; what they have bottled up inside their little fedora-wearing hearts and lack the means to say themselves. However it turns out, you will have helped free someone from a subservient state of affection, another from a confused state of misunderstanding, and (maybe) even helped a potential romance to blossom fully.

What do you think? Is the friendzone an unfortunate label applied to those wrestling with romantic expression? Or is it simply a refuge invented by the possessive, who seek to validate their inability to secure their prize?

I feel this can go either way. The 'Friendzone' can be either a state by which people assign themselves, assuming that they should have women swooning into their arms due to their behaviour - though I don't like to believe that's a thing. I like to believe people may just be referring to good old unrequited love, that which is unreturned, felt towards someone who considers the participants "just friends".

I myself could have been seen as friendzoned until quite recently, when (after a few drinks) I was walking home with my best friend and we kissed after a short heart to heart. We've been together since, though we struggle to put an anniversary on it, as we'd essentially been dating minus the romantic affection for months, even acting as wingman for each other.

What I'm trying to say is that the OP is right, it's better to have feelings out in the open rather than bottle them up, which is quite something to hear from a stiff upper-lipped Brit. Encourage people to break out of the friendzone. Even if you can't be involved, you'll have said your peace and - surprise surpirse - you'll get over them.

 

[Raikas]

Anyway, a 52 kilo loss certainly implies several things about a fellow: The dieter must have incredible strength of will to maintain such a rate of loss consistently and/or the dieter now has a greater range of physical capacity than previous. Either one of those traits would be desirable, regardless of how conventionally attractive the bone structure of the dieter's face is. True?

In general, yes. That said, a fair number of the people who made the "attractive younger brother" comment didn't know that it was from dieting - I had a couple of those people ask me if he'd been sick, because they didn't want to congratulate him if it was a side effect of disease. So while the people who knew (or assumed) that it was a diet might have been attracted to the willpower, a fair number of people thought he looked good even though their default assumption was a wasting disease.

 

[Mikeyfell]

"Friendzone" is a stupid concept.

I have friends, I have friends who are girls, and I've had girl friends. And let me tell you one thing.

FRIENDS ARE BETTER!
Girlfriends are horrible people who's only purpose in life is to make you suffer. Girlfriends (Or any gender or non-gender-specific set of identities you wish to group together) don't want to be "more than friends" That concept is a lie.
They want to treat you like subhuman trash for the mere privilege of being within proximity to them.

When ever a woman agrees to be your "girlfriend" it's almost like they flip a switch and every ounce of empathy and compassion drain from their bodies like the air let out of a balloon. And suddenly because you agreed to date them they feel like they have a slave who they are free to abuse, completely guilt free.

Or at least that's what happened in my experiences...
4 (FOUR!) of my best friends all turned in to monsters because I had the gall to want to see where our realtionship would go...

SO yeah... friend zone rocks

 

[Terminal Blue]

I hope that by putting both paragraphs below each other you will be able how contradictory you're being.

Nope.

You're not going to trip me up when it comes to my own stance on relationships. I tend to have multiple relationships at the same time, if I didn't think very hard about the ethical principles behind how to treat partners (or prospective partners) that situation would be neither possible nor desirable.

On one hand you say that making yourself unhappy for someone else is not good. But at the same time you describe someone doing just that as someone who is "treating that person as a human being to whom you were not capable of being honest, towards whose feelings you have displayed no regard and yet whom you still somehow have the delusional audacity to feel you ever deserved."

This is only a contradiction if you assume that I was advocating a selfish or egotistical attitude towards relationships, which given how often I used the term "selfish" pejoratively I had hoped noone would assume.

In short, I was not advocating selfishness. I was pointing out the fact that self-defeating altruism is itself a form of selfishness. It is not the only form of selfishness which is possible. Imposing your feelings on your friends and then abandoning them when they don't give you what you want is also quite selfish. I consider it infinitely more forgivable, and certainly infinitely preferable to hanging around being a passive aggressive shit, but it is not something you can expect other people to simply accept or understand. It is not blameless. It is not nobodies fault.

If you walk into a situation, suddenly expect to be able to change the rules and then run away when it turns out you can't, then you are at fault - if nothing else, you shouldn't have gotten into that situation in the first place. This doesn't necessarily mean there is anything you could or should have done differently, but if you can't even recognize that this kind of behavior is immensely hurtful to other people and that you are responsible for that, then you have a problem.

Having gone through such a scenario (back in them olden teenager days) I can say you're being extremely hypocritical. I'm sorry but no I don't feel like me not thinking tormenting myself is worth whatever benefits someone has from said friendship.

I didn't say it was. I said it was selfish. It is. It's not more selfish than sitting around tormenting yourself, which is why you probably did the right thing in getting out, but that doesn't absolve everything.

I've been through this scenario several times. In fact, I've actually been involved for about 5 years now with someone whom I was previously friends with and who initially rejected me. A big part of what allowed that to happen was the fact that I stopped assuming that "being happy" is the same as "getting everything you want". There are degrees of happiness in that regard.

 

[Vegosiux]

A big part of what allowed that to happen was the fact that I stopped assuming that "being happy" is the same as "getting everything you want".

But it's not about "getting everything you want". It's about getting "one thing" you want, one thing you'd be quite content to give up other things you also might want for.

I'm going to assume poor wording here and that you meant "Not getting what you want all the time."

PS: If you want to get into discussing what looks like a semantic difference (might prove interesting), I do have work soon so you'll have to wait a bit.

 

[Ieyke]

...

My definition is different then what is seems most define as a 'friendzone' mine is a mutual attraction with a non-mutual decision on what to do with it.

So by your definition, both people are attracted to each other, but one of them wants to remain friends while the other wants to date?

That is the actual definition, yes.
There is a degree of mutual attraction. One friend is willing to risk what they have for something more, the other is unwilling to take the risk.