In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[Realitycrash]

"Entitlement" has now been applied to "relationships".
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

Oh, and "Friendzone" isn't just limited to girls turning down guys for long term relationships.
Guys can, and have done it to girls too and for reasons beyond the stereotypical "trophy-fuck-chasing bro-douche".

And we get treated in pretty much the same manner as a girl gets treated. I.e accused of only wanting 'shallow' people because we want to date those we find physically attractive instead of random girls that are nice to us and then later complain because being 'nice' isn't all you want.
It's gender-neutral, for sure, the problem is that we as a society have sort of groomed this absurd standard for women where they are supposed to care about 'feelings' or 'what is on the inside', and some guys apparently take this seriously and get offended when women imply that 'Hey, I have a right to be physically attracted to people as well'.

 

[nariette]

I think you have two kinds of friendzone, the one that is blaming and the other that describes the situation. The blaming one suggests that the desired person is being wrong. Because the person having desire thinks that if he/she is nice to the desired he/she should be rewarded with the same feelings/sex. The other kind can be used to simplify a situation of unrequited love. However, the term friendzone will always sound like the first, blaming kind. And to make matters worse, the internet usually talks about the friendzone in a blaming way.

So yeah, the friendzone exists. Though I can say that I'm probably not the only one who doesn't like the term friendzone. If you are in love with someone, and the other person doesn't think that way about you, you shouldn't go around blaming her/him. If you need to state the fact that you are a nice person to question being turned down, maybe you are a tiny bit wrong?

Which brings me to a different point. We all feel sorry for the person who got rejected, but the person that rejected him/her in the first place usually feels really bad too. Nobody likes breaking hearts, some people pretend to, but usually they are pretending to be tough. Or are just really messed up. For those of you who have never turned someone down, imagine this: a good friend asking you out, and you turn him/her down, therefore making him/her sad. It isn't a pleasant thing to do, but you really don't want to have a relationship with him or her, but don't want to see him/her sad either. You can't force someone to not be sad about being rejected, but think about the rejector. He/she is probably not happy too.

This is indeed a difficult issue. Of course you can get rejected, but what is the difference between leading on and just being friendly? And to what extent can you be angry at someone for flirting with you, but not wanting to go further? maybe instead of bluntly saying the friendzone exists and is bad or claiming it doesn't exist and people need to get over it, we need to be more understanding or simply mind our own business.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

The way I see it, if a person *genuinely* likes me, they will do all of that shit (spending time with me, listening to me rant, etcetcetc) because that is it's own reward. They won't expect anything in return, be it sex or a relationship.

I appreciate I might be missing some context, but what you are describing seems like a very manipulative relationship. All human interaction, regardless of being romantic or not, relies on a two way exchange; you give something, and they give something back. If you believe that doing things for someone without any expectation of return because they 'like' them is an example of healthy human interaction then I am afraid do not agree with you.

Yes, actually is an example of healthy human interaction. They're people you like, so you do stuff for them. It's not necessarily one sided, presumably for one party to like the other the liked party ought to be nice to the other one. If they aren't then the problem is why the like someone who isn't nice to them.

It's the latter example you give that is what concerned me. Arkenangel's post seemed to imply that there should be no expectation of return whatsoever (be it material, romantic interest, or even compassion) even though the other person is clearly making contributions (moral support during a rant, for example). I did not mean to imply that it has to be a tangible return; As you said, the could receive compassion and kindness back as well.

My point is that presumably you like them for *some* reason. It isn't some kind of exchange. For some reason you like them so you do stuff for them. Not specifically because they do stuff for you, it's whatever reason it happens to be that you like them. The problem is just if you like them when, perhaps, you really shouldn't.

Hmm, when you phrase it like that, I think we're both arguing the same thing, just from different directions. We both believe that a relationship should not solely benefit anther person, that if someone does something for someone else, (in a healthy relationship) they would get something rewarding out of it.

When I talk about an exchange, this is the same as what you mean by the thing you like about someone; for example, both parties having the same favourite sport is a thing that could be likeable, and being able to play that sport together would be part of the exchange.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

There is no such thing as friendzoned .

This right here is the only problem I have with arguments against.

Short of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, any time you say "There is no such thing," you are almost certainly wrong, especially in terms of social situations.

With 6 [i/]billion[/i] people on Earth, it's downright silly for anyone to think they can speak for every interaction between every man and woman around the world.

Men take advantage of women, women take advantage of men.

Perspective, people. Perspective.

Er, in most Western societies, it's at least nominally recognised that a woman isn't obliged to fall in love with/have sex with any random man who happens to be nice to her. Given that this is the basis of the friendzone (at least in that definition), the whole concept falls over.

That isn't even close to a single one of the definitions of the "Friend Zone"

You're twisting what others are saying to make it sound like an impossible thing.

 

[generals3]

Er, in most Western societies, it's at least nominally recognised that a woman isn't obliged to fall in love with/have sex with any random man who happens to be nice to her. Given that this is the basis of the friendzone (at least in that definition), the whole concept falls over.

No it is not.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/friend-zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnMWvbFpS8

I'm not sure how you need to twist said scene to get that out of the word "friendzone" but I don't see anything that suggests you're correct. While there are probably people on dark corners of the internet who have butchered the word to imply what you claim it does it is neither it's original meaning nor a definition accepted by everyone.

 

[VodkaKnight]

The friendzone exists, but to be honest there's no real reason to complain about it.
It sucks, but really its their decision and it's probably nice for them to have a good person around.

 

[Frankster]

I'm no physchogist , worry not. But i thought social anxiety was the exception not the rule. I wouldn't tell someone who's depressed "to get over it". However , i wasn't under the impression that social anxiety was so common . Yes it exists , and those people need to work on their social issues , but i don't think everyone who screams " friendzone" have social anxiety . Those who do are excused.

What i find more alarming are the people who are so easily infatuated to the point that rejection from a girl,makes them lose their shit.

Well was mostly responding to your example about it being wimpy not being able to simply ask a girl out, since if a person really is having trouble doing that task past a certain age it's likely because to that person it really isnt just a 50/50 choice but has actual problems that prevent the person from functioning entirely normally (also notice how i stopped alluding to gender here..becaue it happens to both xP Though of course some gender differences apply), social anxiety tends to be the usual explanation.

Anyways relating to the friendzoned thing, woulndn't go so far as to say its entirely due to social disorders, that would be too easy. Especially the extreme examples that people here allude to: so the kind of guy who agressively befriends women and acts like their servant and/or confident in the hopes of basically seducing via stockhold syndrome then complains that his true love has been foiled by some "jerk". Thats not social anxiety thats just..."not cool" to put it in as mildly as i can.

 

[Fluffer]

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?

As with many things probably a mix depending on the circumstances. Unrequited/undeclared love is a thing and you'll never escape folks lumping experiences that don't really qualify in there for good measure.

 

[Piorn]

I know for a fact it exists.
My sister was talking about one of her classmates, and basically said she knew him for so long, he became this "sexless friend-thing" to her.
She didn't specifically say "friendzone", and as far as I could tell, was unaware of the concept.

Now I'm not saying, justifying or judging anything, just that as a basic concept, it exists inside the human mind.

 

[wulf3n]

Just another word mutilated by the internet to such a degree that it can't even be classified as a word anymore in that it doesn't convey a specific idea or opinion.

Just like Privilege, Entitlement, Sexism & Misogyny.

 

[krazykidd]

I know for a fact it exists.
My sister was talking about one of her classmates, and basically said she knew him for so long, he became this "sexless friend-thing" to her.
She didn't specifically say "friendzone", and as far as I could tell, was unaware of the concept.

Now I'm not saying, justifying or judging anything, just that as a basic concept, it exists inside the human mind.

Sexless-friend-thing. That's demoralising to say the least. I hope she didn't tel him that.

 

[Fox12]

Unrequited love is a bitter pill to swallow, and it's one I think everyone has had to take at some point in their life time. I also consider this a very pure form of affection, because it usually does represent a sincere desire for another persons happiness over your own. It's just part of the human experience. Hopefully you'll move on and find someone else.

My issue is when people use the term "friendzone" with a sense of entitlement. It suggests that in order for you to do something nice for someone else, you expect something in return. In this case a relationship, or even sex. This strikes me as somewhat manipulative. It also tends to suggest that the object of your desires is just that- an object. They are a thing that you think you can posses instead of the real blood, and flesh, and imperfections of an actual person. It also suggests, as Archangel put it, that friendship is just some consolation prize. That is, in itself, insulting.

In all honesty, it seems unlikely that the girl (or guy) is ignorant about your feelings. If they really liked you in a romantic way then they probably would have made a move on you themselves. If they didn't make a move on you, or reciprocate your feelings, then they probably only ever saw you as a friend in the first place, in which case you never actually stood a chance with them at all, no matter what you did. They are either aware of your feelings, and don't share them, or they are unaware of your feelings, in which case they don't share them. Again, a bitter pill to swallow.

If by friendzone you mean unrequited love, then yes, that always sucks. It's also normal. Most of the time it seems to mean the second definition, in which case I don't have much patience for you. All I'll say is that the second you have enough self confidence to not need another persons approval is the second you'll finally be able to enjoy a mature adult relationship. To me the term has an ugly connotation, and I wish people would stop using it.

Edit: I wasn't speaking to the OP directly, just making a general statement.

 

[Vegosiux]

Unrequited love is a bitter pill to swallow, and it's one I think everyone has had to take at some point in their life time. I also consider this a very pure form of affection, because it usually does represent a sincere desire for another persons happiness over your own. It's just part of the human experience. Hopefully you'll move on and find someone else.

What do you mean, if you really liked them, you'd keep sticking around and doing stuff for them without any expectations! Moving on is the definite proof you were only nice to them because you wanted sex from them and you're a horrible person.

But on a more serious note, yeah, person A isn't morally obliged to favorably answer person B's advances, but on the other hand, person B isn't morally obliged to stick around person A if they need some distance to re-analyze their life and emotional situation after being rejected by person A.

And this is where I personally see a lot of hypocrisy going. Turning down a person is all fine and good, but distancing oneself from a person after being rejected by them is somehow "proof of character flaw" because "If you'd really liked them, you wouldn't have walked off".

 

[KingKickass]

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.

Uh, what about people with really bad anxiety issues? Normally they can't just "man up", it doesn't work that way. I know that all too well.

OT: The problem I have with the Friendzone is that there's not one clear definition that everyone agrees on. Ambiguity is one of many issues of this topic. From what I've gathered, the "Friendzone" is when a guy/girl tries to get into a relationship farther than a friendship with another guy/girl, but the recipient feels as if the person trying to initiate the relationship is just trying to be friends and as such doesn't feel the same way. This can change, but the person in the Friendzone usually just complains about it and doesn't try to further it as was their original intention. I feel as if the Friendzone is a real thing in the same way any relationship is a real thing. It's just one-sided love with a moniker attached to it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I also consider this a very pure form of affection, because it usually does represent a sincere desire for another persons happiness over your own.

I disagree, in fact I would call that one of the most selfish and tainted forms of "affection" imaginable because it doesn't display any empathy for how other people might consider your feelings. Again, this is another problem with the friendzone "narrative". It assumes that all women do not think of you ("socially awkward" male) any more than they think of single-celled protazoa living in their food. It assumes that unless women deign to let you sleep with them you are automatically beneath their notice and of no consequence to them.

This is not true. In the real world your feelings matter. They matter to more than just you. Looking after them is not just advisable if you want to be functional person, it is also kind of a social responsibility because if you aren't looking after yourself, if you aren't doing what makes you happy, then you are implicitly making it someone else's responsibility to look after you and make you happy. That is not cool when you are a grown up, it is not going to make it easy for people to treat you with honesty and dignity, and it is certainly not going to make people want to go to bed with you because really, anyone who has had a bad relationship (i.e. most adult women) can see the impending trainwreck a mile off.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you've said.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's just another way of saying "she's just not that into you". Hey, it happens, and it's very real. I don't get the controversy around this concept, it's only been around since forever. The only novel thing is the term.

 

[Piorn]

I know for a fact it exists.
My sister was talking about one of her classmates, and basically said she knew him for so long, he became this "sexless friend-thing" to her.
She didn't specifically say "friendzone", and as far as I could tell, was unaware of the concept.

Now I'm not saying, justifying or judging anything, just that as a basic concept, it exists inside the human mind.

Sexless-friend-thing. That's demoralising to say the least. I hope she didn't tel him that.

He wasn't even trying to date her or anything. She was just so shocked when he turned up with a girlfriend, as if it was the weirdest thing in the world.
And with "sexless" I meant Genderless, not forever a Virgin.
Still nothing I'd like to be called, true.

 

[Duskflamer]

I'm sure somebody has said this by now, but just to chime in with my own opinion:

I always thought that the "The girl I'm interested in thinks I'm a friend" definition of friendzone was more of a mutation than the initial meaning. I always thought it to describe a particular situation:

1) Guy likes Girl and wants to be her boyfriend.
2) Girl thinks of Guy as a friend.
3) Girl dates other guys while remaining friends with Guy.
4) Girl goes to Guy as the person she can cry to when she breaks up with other guys.
5) In said crying, Girl describes her ideal boyfriend as possessing many qualities that Guy (at lest thinks he) possesses.
6) Despite this, Girl continues to think of Guy as just a friend.

That's when it becomes "friendzone" instead of just unrequited love, when the girl expresses that she is actively looking for a sort of guy that very much describes this particular guy, who would love to be her boyfriend, but she insists that he doesn't count because he's just a friend.

 

[Terminal Blue]

And this is where I personally see a lot of hypocrisy going. Turning down a person is all fine and good, but distancing oneself from a person after being rejected by them is somehow "proof of character flaw" because "If you'd really liked them, you wouldn't have walked off".

Honestly, I can safely say that if someone I thought was a friend (girl or guy) suddenly walked out on me once it became apparent I wasn't planning to put out or take it further, I would be all like..

..because why the hell would I or anyone want to fuck or declare myself to be formally involved with someone who would genuinely feel differently towards me if I didn't?

Ultimately, what has changed in this scenario? I sure as hell haven't. I feel exactly the same way I always did, as does the other person. All that has been removed is that person's capacity to believe that I will eventually do them if they're persistent enough. If that belief is required for them to treat me like a human being, then I would say I have every right to be disappointed in them as a friend.

The solution here is not for me to respect that person's feelings, I do that anyway. The solution is for that person not to get into friendships with people solely on the expectation of it magically leading to erotic love or carnal knowledge.

 

[Vegosiux]

..because why the hell would I or anyone want to fuck or declare myself to be formally involved with someone who would genuinely feel differently towards me if I didn't?

Who says they're feeling genuinely different about you? They're feeling genuinely different about their priorities and short-term life goals, and need a bit of a distance to refocus and realign the pieces. Why are you making it as if it's all about you?

Ultimately, what has changed in this scenario? I sure as hell haven't. I feel exactly the same way I always did, as does the other person. All that has been removed is that person's capacity to believe that I will eventually do them if they're persistent enough. If that belief is required for them to treat me like a human being, then I would say I have every right to be disappointed in them as a friend.

I'm sorry, but before I even begin replying to this part, I'll request that you provide an explanation how "distancing oneself from a person" means "not treating that person as a human being", and that explanation better be more watertight than a merman's underpants, or I'm just going to call "hyperbolic bullshit" on this.

Captcha: hissy fit.

Heh.