In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[Terminal Blue]

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.

If you only wanted one thing then the question remains of why you didn't just ask for it, and why you tolerated something which you didn't actually want in the hope (the incredibly foolish hope, in fact) that it might possibly lead to what you want. That's not nice. In fact, it's kind of deceptive.

Put it this way. If I am the friend who it suddenly turns out you can't be friends with because you wanted a relationship with me, then I am also not getting what I want out of this situation. However, unlike you who wants something you don't have, which there was never any indication you would ever have and which I never consented to give you, I am being deprived of something in which I was already secure, which I already felt was there and which you gave every indication that you wanted. If you allowed or tolerated that in service of your own quest to get what you wanted from me, then I don't see anything wrong with feeling deceived.

It's a hurtful feeling to know that something which I invested in means so little to you that it can be overshadowed by your grief at what you're not getting from me. Like it or not, you are entirely responsible for that pain, unlike the false responsibility you would assign to me by accusing you of "friendzoning" you. All I'm saying is, take responsibility.

It doesn't make you a bad person, but it does mean you messed up.

 

[Lightknight]

I thought friendzone was simply being in the position of being relegated to ONLY being a friend to a person who you want a romantic relationship with. It isn't necessarily sex as Jim seemed to slate it as but just a more meaningful/intimate relationship.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting this position. It is essentially saying that a person you're interested in isn't interested in you. A conflict as old as time.

 

[Vegosiux]

If you only wanted one thing then the question remains of why you didn't just ask for it, and why you tolerated something which you didn't actually want in the hope (the incredibly foolish hope, in fact) that it might possibly lead to what you want. That's not nice. In fact, it's kind of deceptive.

What I meant is more like, say, I have 50 euro to spend, and I can buy a new game or treat this girl I like to something. I want both of those things, but I'm going to be giving up one for the other (silly example, I know, but I think it will serve for my point). Now if the girl turns out to not be interested, I'll be sad, and for a moment I might even think I should have just bought the bloody game instead. Doesn't mean I felt entitled to her being interested in me, just that I'm lamenting my choice a bit, and that in hindsight, I'd have made a different one if I knew she didn't like me "that way" beforehand.

When you expose yourself like that, you make yourself vulnerable. That's not to say people should tip-toe around you, but if you do get hurt in that state, I think it's understandable you want to lick your wounds for a bit, so to say.

Put it this way. If I am the friend who it suddenly turns out you can't be friends with because you wanted a relationship with me, then I am also not getting what I want out of this situation. However, unlike you who wants something you don't have, which there was never any indication you would ever have and which I never consented to give you, I am being deprived of something in which I was already secure, which I already felt was there and which you gave every indication that you wanted. If you allowed or tolerated that in service of your own quest to get what you wanted from me, then I don't see anything wrong with feeling deceived.

I see it a bit differently. What you describe can and sometimes does happen, of course, but bottom line is that nobody's entitled to any kind of a relationship they want, be it an intimate relationship, or a friendship. As long as the matter is handled amicably, I don't think anyone involved deserves scorn, even if they cut all contact afterwards. Just like I'm not entitled to have that girl pounce on me, she's not entitled to my friendship, if I am for whatever reason unable or unwilling to give it.

I mean, with my current situation in life, I simply don't have the time and resources for all my friendships as it is, but if I get rejected by a girl, I'm more likely to spend time handling the pre-existing friendships with other people I generally don't have time for instead of grooming a friendship with her. I suppose it's a bit of a comfort zone thing. There's only one of me, after all.

This is, of course, in the scenario that the new romantic interest popped up rather recently. It's different when I've known the lady for a while and we were friends, and I tried to make a move which she rejected - I'll still be calling to keep the old times up, because I have enjoyed my time with her already. Just maybe not for the next two or three weeks.

It's a hurtful feeling to know that something which I invested in means so little to you that it can be overshadowed by your grief at what you're not getting from me. Like it or not, you are entirely responsible for that pain, unlike the false responsibility you would assign to me by accusing you of "friendzoning" you. All I'm saying is, take responsibility.

Not entirely. I'm entirely responsible for putting myself into the situation, yes. But the choice that caused me pain wasn't mine alone. I'm not going to blame you for my pain, but I think there's nothing wrong with momentarily wishing you made a different choice. But what happens afterward, how I handle that situation is up to me - you might not like that choice, but the least you can do is respect it, as long as, as said before, I've handled it amicably. And if I call you after a few months and ask you if you want to go see a movie, no strings attached, I'd hope you wouldn't try to guilt trip me over it, even if you have different arrangements made and can't or don't want to come.

Now if I was rude to you and threw a hissy fit over you telling me no, then you can of course tell me to go screw myself next time you hear from me if you so wish - I had it coming.

It doesn't make you a bad person, but it does mean you messed up.

Indeed. Messing up sucks, but it's all a learning experience. I'm just trying to point out how these things don't exist in a vacuum, so if I decide not to call for a while (or at all), that doesn't mean I'm an asshole, it means more that there are other things taking up my time.

But that's me, I can't sit and do nothing for more than five minutes, so you won't catch me wallowing in self-pity either, cause that's a waste of time. I accept the fact that some people might be doing that, and to those I'll say "Get the hell off your ass and go get busy something. Anything."

(Daylight savings is awesome. You think you have to go to work only to realize you have another hour)

 

[generals3]

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.

Personally i'd say that the least you'd think about it the more possible and desirable. But I guess it depends on where your introspection leads. (And i'm not implying any place is somehow inferior or worse, just saying this preemptively)

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.

Accept maybe not but understand yes. (it's actually something so easy to understand I would be worried about anyone who doesn't)

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.

You assume that the act of getting in that situation was on purpose. When you are friends with someone and than months afterwards develop feelings it's quite clear that there was no intention to create that situation. Unless you believe one can just suppress/switch off such feelings. I wouldn't hold anyone accountable if I were the one the other side. I may be disappointing in how things turned out, sure, but I would certainly not put any blame on said person.

 

[Echopunk]

To anyone who has been "friendzoned" by someone they loved, or even just had an ex move on before you did: Blare this song at top volume ONCE and then move on. Change the pronouns as you sing along, if need be.

Note- If the name of the song being Prayer to God offends any athiests or whatever else, listen to it for a minute before you take umbrage. Its like people giving up on an Andy Kaufman routine early, you miss the entire point.

 

[Riot3000]

I got through the thread and it played out exactly how it usually plays out.

There is nothing wrong with the word or phrase friendzone it is only depends on how a person interprets it. The term can have both positive, neutral or negative connotations depending on how you want to look at it. This is not a black or white term and you can find positives to agree with or negatives you disagree with if you look hard enough at anything.

Also saying something doesn't exist usually doesn't hold water IMHO the whole "alpha" and "beta" guy thing is mostly arbitrary whatever to me but many times I had people tell me its real.

 

[Silverbeard]

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.

Understood. Maybe this just comes down to a difference of thought. I'd still be more likely to congratulate this co-worker of yours for the iron will needed to maintain such a rigorous diet before I said anything about how the co-worker looked.

 

[Spearmaster]

Sex and sexual attraction are a primal thing, its coded into our genes. Throughout the centuries we have been trying to adhere all these social ideals like love, romance and chivalry to a force of nature and the wires get crossed. Then you end up with these anomalies like the "friend zone". Does it exist? Yes it does only as much as all the other ideals attached to sex do. Sex is a simple thing but a modernly defined relationship is an abomination of social rules, codes, laws, culture and the like. Society tells people what their relationship should be like and nature tells people who they are sexually attracted to and most of the time society and nature don't see eye to eye.

If you're going to cite 'nature' shouldn't you actually have some kind of evidence? "Because nature" is not a particularly convincing sort of thing, I'm not seeing why it should be believed to be an issue of nature.

You mean like hundreds of thousands of years of mammal breeding?

Guys who are mad about being friend zoned are actually mad about following societies playbook on scoring a relationship with a girl then nature foils the plan. Magazines, books, movies, advertizement and society promote all these things that are supposed to win the girl but in the end fail unless nature is on board. I can understand the frustration when a guy is attracted to a woman and rather than letting nature take its course and either be rejected or accepted, he is then thrown into societies machine and told what clothes and fragrances he needs to buy, how to have his hair, how to act, all the nice things to say and do to win her over, then after running societies gauntlet get slapped to the ground by nature, I can understand the frustration. You did all the things to make her like you, and she does, as a friend, because none of those things you did can change nature.

Then they're angry about something they imagined. There's no playbook from society, that doing it would guarantee success is something they themselves have decided. And you seem to quickly jump to 'nature'. Not seeing it. Physical attraction matters, yes. I do not see why that means that there's nothing besides that and this 'playbook'. Varying personality traits matter as well, and I'm not seeing a simple way to chalk them all up to nature, and there's certainly no possible 'playbook' to have the correct ones as people's tastes vary. What one person likes another might not be able to stand, so that'd be a matter of guessing. Not to mention that you can't just obtain a new personality so simply, much less a specific one you want.

And the only ones they have to be angry at are themselves, for foolishly believing that social interaction is so simple as being able to be summed up as some sort of process. I imagine a tiny bit of introspection could have dispelled the idea for them, for instance noticing that's not how their own affections work.

So its not nature but physical attraction and personality traits matter? Those aren't nature? Attitudes, responses, gestures and things even as simple as a stance can be a factor as well and can be coached and manipulated by anyone who is aware of them. Saying the right thing at the right time is not always as random as you think it is. There is a ton of media dedicated to just these alterations of behavior for the purpose of dating and many men buy into it. I feel they are more a victim to it. Ever know someone who wore different cloths to seem more attractive to a certain person? Someone that went to a concert they didn't even like? Did you know that some people even lie to get a date... but all these things don't seem to matter weather she sees you as a mate but they may like you as a friend.

This is not the case every time though, there are still the macho frat types that believe that dinner and a movie is payment for sex. The difference is in weather the guy genuinely cares for the girl, in the cases where they do care lumping them into the frat guy crowd just adds insult to injury.

I'd have to wonder what *sort* of caring there is with such little understanding of the other person to think that they work so simply as following a basic process to get the result they want. I'd be a tad annoyed if someone thought I was so simple and didn't consider that I might have preferences. Certainly would doubt if they actually understood me enough to care about me as opposed to what they think I am.

Even if they cared enough to change themselves to meet your preferences? Or at least what they thought your preferences were? When its possible they did so not for some kind of reward but they thought they could make you happy. Or is this the "men only want one thing" thing again?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Personally i'd say that the least you'd think about it the more possible and desirable. But I guess it depends on where your introspection leads. (And i'm not implying any place is somehow inferior or worse, just saying this preemptively)

Well, for example, making out with someone in front of your partner because you simply assumed that's okay is a great way to make your relationship extremely undesirable for them. You do need to think, unfortunately, and I find that the more complex your sex life is, the more you need to fall back on principles and communication strategies to keep the whole thing from flying apart under its own weight.

True, I'm not down with the self-help inspired notion that doing consensual non-monogamy requires you to be some kind of enlightened romantic genius, I know that I'm not in that category by any stretch of the imagination, but I try and I think trying is kind of essential.

Moreover, I'd say in the age of "confluent love" developing that kind of competence is increasingly essential for everyone, whatever their preferred relationship pattern. Even if you just want casual sex, I think it helps unless you want to go the abusive and predatory route.

Accept maybe not but understand yes. (it's actually something so easy to understand I would be worried about anyone who doesn't)

I can understand it as a failure (as mentioned, I've done it so it would be weird if I couldn't) I just can't understand it in the way it's being presented here.

You assume that the act of getting in that situation was on purpose. When you are friends with someone and than months afterwards develop feelings it's quite clear that there was no intention to create that situation.

You still could have taken action.

For one, "feelings" are not like demonic possession. They don't suddenly take over your body overnight. It's a long process in which you yourself are generally highly complicit. I guess it's kind of understandable that you wouldn't see this process as controllable, because that seems to be the consensus in our society (anger can be managed, desire cannot) but in my experience that is not true. Desire is highly manageable. Like anger it has triggers you can avoid. It has thought processes you can rationalize, and it dies very quickly once you stop watering it.

I suspect another problem is that men are generally discouraged from having emotionally involved friendships, because it is generally assumed that men's friendships will be with other men and that would be gaaaay! Still, feeling an intense emotional connection with your friends is actually pretty normal in the context of friendship. I mean, I'm guessing we're all long past the notion that the purpose of sex is to serve as a representation for a particular kind of love. We all know that sex without intense feeling is possible. It's probably time to realize that the reverse is not only possible but highly desirable.

 

[sumanoskae]

My primary problem with the idea of the "Friendzone" is that it creates confusion. Simply saying somebody is your friend does not always equate to not being attracted to them or being unwilling to consider the prospect of romance.

I was once "Friendzoned", but I didn't assume the absence of attraction as a result of the bonds of friendship, and that particular attraction turned out to be mutual. Hell, I wouldn't date somebody I wasn't friends with.

I get the impression that a lot of people hear people call them friends and interpret the statement as some kind of preemptive rejection when all it really means is "I consider you a friend", not "I consider you a friend and am thus not attracted to you".

 

[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?

Just saying, yeah I've been there multiple times. I'm not that attractive and I'm rather clumsy when it comes to trying to court women, but my anger/hurt/resent has nothing to do with said women not putting out. In every case I was seeking a relationship and obviously didn't succeed.

Furthermore, if I'm pining after someone and it my attempt fails, why on God's green earth would I want to keep maintaining that friendship with that person? Everytime I see them is just going to be a constant reminder about how they didn't return my feelings. I don't want experience that. Certainly don't want my pettyness dragging the other person down. It's wiser to just fade away like a ghost.

Mind you,I've since gotten to the point where I will never make the first move ever again towards a woman. Ever. I'm very fortunate the lady friend I have now sought me out, but if that relationship where to go south (and I pray it won't ever) I'm pretty much done with the whole scene. I don't mix well with it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

 

[generals3]

You still could have taken action.

For one, "feelings" are not like demonic possession. They don't suddenly take over your body overnight. It's a long process in which you yourself are generally highly complicit. I guess it's kind of understandable that you wouldn't see this process as controllable, because that seems to be the consensus in our society (anger can be managed, desire cannot) but in my experience that is not true. Desire is highly manageable. Like anger it has triggers you can avoid. It has thought processes you can rationalize, and it dies very quickly once you stop watering it.

I suspect another problem is that men are generally discouraged from having emotionally involved friendships, because it is generally assumed that men's friendships will be with other men and that would be gaaaay! Still, feeling an intense emotional connection with your friends is actually pretty normal in the context of friendship. I mean, I'm guessing we're all long past the notion that the purpose of sex is to serve as a representation for a particular kind of love. We all know that sex without intense feeling is possible. It's probably time to realize that the reverse is not only possible but highly desirable.

(I've left out the two other parts because while interesting discussions i feel like they're getting away from the topic at hand)

I don't agree desires are highly manageable, anger isn't either actually. Anger is being managed the same way is desired is actually. You are sexually attracted to someone => you don't have sex with said person unless there is consent, just like "you are angry at someone => you don't punch them in the face". That's usually how those types of feelings are managed. But inside your mind the feelings remain. Whether it be anger or desire.

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. Though the antagonizing of people who rejected you is usually a typical attempt at rationalizing your way out. You create a false negative image of someone as to make the outcome of not being together appear better than it is. But when we're talking about friends I doubt antagonizing your friend is a good solution.

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. So if your argument is that one could have/should have somehow controlled his feelings well than drifting apart would be the promoted solution. I mean if someone pisses you off as hell isn't just ignoring said person the best way to manage your anger?

 

[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.