In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[Xman490]

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 heard so much "friendzone" talk on this site . Guys are turning into wimps.

(second last sentence edited for clarity up there)

I'd say it's more like a 10/90 chance she says yes, since those of us who have thus "turned into wimps" to an extent are not particularly attractive (can't really imagine why) and/or are unlucky. I know that half the girls I asked out already had boyfriends, so that factors in as well.

There have been a lot of friendzone threads here, but it's a real threat to our self-esteem to have rejection keep happening to us, possibly all the way through school and leaving us being 30-year-old or 40-year-old absolute virgins (and not subject to the fairy tale logic that The 40-Year-Old Virgin movie had).

 

[generals3]

Absolutely, and I'm in no way trying to downplay the fact that being spurned is a horrible experience that can be extremely painful. I'm just saying that I don't think we need a special term for those situations. In the event that one friend declares their attraction for another friend, there are three outcomes; the two become romantically involved, they remain friends, or they are no longer friends. Obviously two of those scenarios lead to hurt for at least one party. But the focus of the 'friend-zone' is the second scenario, and I'd argue that we don't need a special term for that, because the two were friends before, and they are friends after. Designating it as a different kind of friendship would only make the whole thing more awkward for them.

Again, not saying that the situation itself doesn't warrant discussion, but I would argue that we don't need the term 'friend-zone' in order to have that discussion.

While the need for a specific term can be a debate on itself I don't see a problem with that. The friendzone experience is probably one of the most painful rejections and that in itself may make it worth having a specific term. If you're rejected in a bar or after a first date with someone you don't/barely know all that it'll cost you is some ego and you'll probably be disappointed. But in the friendzone case it's much messier. What do you do? Do you keep trying? (after all feelings can change but it can also result in merely prolonging the inevitable; the realization it won't ever happen) Do you try to get over it and stay friends? (which might make the getting over it much harder than it should be) Or do you give the friendship up to get over it? (which results in the loss of a (good) friend)

 

[b3nn3tt]

-snip-

So we should just call it what, "A friendship no longer desirable because of unrequited feelings of love"? I mean, I get what you're saying, it's not the "friendship" that's the issue so much as the situation. Clearly it behooves us to invent a better shorthand term for such a situation. I propose "Illegitimate friendship" in the vein of "illegitimate (unwanted) pregnancies"

I would dispute the idea that a friendship necessarily becomes undesirable because of those feelings. Obviously it may be too painful/uncomfortable for one or both parties involved to continue the friendship, but I don't like the thought that a friendship has to end just because someone develops romantic feelings for the other. It suggests that the friendship is doomed the instant someone's feelings change.

Much as I do actually enjoy the term 'illegitimate friendship', I find it too in line with my first suggested definition, that idea that the friendship only existed because one party wanted more from the start. I would wholeheartedly agree that we need a new term though. I think that 'friend-zone' may have started innocently enough, but, like so many other terms, has become tainted by the internet, and is very difficult to use in an innocent sense any more.

 

[Soundwave]

I would dispute the idea that a friendship necessarily becomes undesirable because of those feelings. Obviously it may be too painful/uncomfortable for one or both parties involved to continue the friendship, but I don't like the thought that a friendship has to end just because someone develops romantic feelings for the other. It suggests that the friendship is doomed the instant someone's feelings change.

Much as I do actually enjoy the term 'illegitimate friendship', I find it too in line with my first suggested definition, that idea that the friendship only existed because one party wanted more from the start. I would wholeheartedly agree that we need a new term though. I think that 'friend-zone' may have started innocently enough, but, like so many other terms, has become tainted by the internet, and is very difficult to use in an innocent sense any more.

So we can agree then that "illegitimate friendships" are only the ones where the failure to progress sours the perceptions of the one such that any "real" friendship is impossible, and that situations where people can "get past that things didn't work out any further" as just a 'friendship'? That seems fair to me.

 

[b3nn3tt]

-snip-

While the need for a specific term can be a debate on itself I don't see a problem with that. The friendzone experience is probably one of the most painful rejections and that in itself may make it worth having a specific term. If you're rejected in a bar or after a first date with someone you don't/barely know all that it'll cost you is some ego and you'll probably be disappointed. But in the friendzone case it's much messier. What do you do? Do you keep trying? (after all feelings can change but it can also result in merely prolonging the inevitable; the realization it won't ever happen) Do you try to get over it and stay friends? (which might make the getting over it much harder than it should be) Or do you give the friendship up to get over it? (which results in the loss of a (good) friend)

I could not agree more. My argument is based more around semantics than anything else. In any of the situations you described, I don't think that there is any need to have a special term to designate the fact that one party in a friendship developed romantic feelings for the other. In the best case scenario (in my opinion), after the rejection the two will be able to get their friendship back to how it was before any declarations of romantic intentions were made. In that scenario, it would just make everything so much more difficult if the rejected party referred to themselves as being in the 'friend-zone' as it would clearly suggest that something had changed, and would make it so much more difficult to regain the friendship they had.

Basically, I can't think of a scenario where 'friend-zone' would be an appropriate term to use. I am perfectly open to the idea of being corrected on that issue, however.

 

[b3nn3tt]

-snip-

So we can agree then that "illegitimate friendships" are only the ones where the failure to progress sours the perceptions of the one such that any "real" friendship is impossible, and that situations where people can "get past that things didn't work out any further" as just a 'friendship'? That seems fair to me.

I think I'd agree with that. To my mind, if a friendship can't survive something like that then it wasn't a great friendship to start with.

 

[Seracen]

I will say that I've used the "friendzone" as a means to make my relationships easier. I'm a guy, and I have no need for a woman to walk on eggshells around me, or expect things of me, when I have no intention of courting her in the first place.

Conversely, me being friendly has also sometimes been seen as flirtation, when that was not my intent. Of course, the way I am using the term is NOT the way this (or the other) thread suggests. I guess you could call my approach as simple friendship, rather than friendzoning. Yet the expectation is such that this qualification was necessary to establishing certain relationships at all.

Of course, I didn't have to actively angle myself and them into the "friendzone." But I just didn't want to deal with the awkwardness of that nebulous "when is he/she going to make a move" ideology.

 

[LetalisK]

The friendzone does exist(it's just trendy new way of saying "unrequited attraction"), but it's not something that someone does to you. It's something you do to yourself.

 

[Vegosiux]

The friendzone does exist(it's just trendy new way of saying "unrequited attraction"), but it's not something that someone does to you. It's something you do to yourself.

You cant't do it to yourself, as you don't choose whether the other peron finds you attractive or not. It's something that, well, happens. Sometimes things happen to people without them being anyone's fault.

 

[Silverbeard]

So If I don't find you attractive, don't guilt me by saying I only date 'shallow' people, simply because you yourself aren't attractive. Because I used to be heavily overweight, and I'm damn sure you wouldn't be even looking twice at me back then.

You'll date who you wish, of course, but I feel that it is relevant to point out that the good-looking chaps amongst us will not stay good-looking forever. Looks are impossible to maintain over time but superior traits of character- upstanding honesty, courage in the face of certain defeat and relentlessness- are much easier to maintain. Pursuing a mate because he looks good and works out three hours a day over another who is less striking but would nevertheless die for you may not be the wisest investment of your time.
This applies to both genders, obviously.

 

[LetalisK]

The friendzone does exist(it's just trendy new way of saying "unrequited attraction"), but it's not something that someone does to you. It's something you do to yourself.

You cant't do it to yourself, as you don't choose whether the other peron finds you attractive or not. It's something that, well, happens. Sometimes things happen to people without them being anyone's fault.

But you do choose whether or not you wallow around like a drunk pig instead of moving on and finding someone that actually returns that attraction. That is what being friendzoned is. Otherwise, it's just being a friend. To me, "friendzoned" and "friend" are differentiated only by your attitude.

 

[Realitycrash]

So If I don't find you attractive, don't guilt me by saying I only date 'shallow' people, simply because you yourself aren't attractive. Because I used to be heavily overweight, and I'm damn sure you wouldn't be even looking twice at me back then.

You'll date who you wish, of course, but I feel that it is relevant to point out that the good-looking chaps amongst us will not stay good-looking forever. Looks are impossible to maintain over time but superior traits of character- upstanding honesty, courage in the face of certain defeat and relentlessness- are much easier to maintain. Pursuing a mate because he looks good and works out three hours a day over another who is less striking but would nevertheless die for you may not be the wisest investment of your time.
This applies to both genders, obviously.

Overall I'm just annoyed that apparently people of both genders think that it is abhorrent to care about finding someone physically attractive. 'I'm so funny and nice, so the fact that I smell bad and don't work out shouldn't matter!'.

 

[Vegosiux]

So If I don't find you attractive, don't guilt me by saying I only date 'shallow' people, simply because you yourself aren't attractive. Because I used to be heavily overweight, and I'm damn sure you wouldn't be even looking twice at me back then.

You'll date who you wish, of course, but I feel that it is relevant to point out that the good-looking chaps amongst us will not stay good-looking forever. Looks are impossible to maintain over time but superior traits of character- upstanding honesty, courage in the face of certain defeat and relentlessness- are much easier to maintain. Pursuing a mate because he looks good and works out three hours a day over another who is less striking but would nevertheless die for you may not be the wisest investment of your time.
This applies to both genders, obviously.

Overall I'm just annoyed that apparently people of both genders think that it is abhorrent to care about finding someone physically attractive. 'I'm so funny and nice, so the fact that I smell bad and don't work out shouldn't matter!'.

Hey hey now, all this "work out" thing is a bit overrated. I mean, you should be doing it for your own health, not to impress the ladies/gentlemen (or if you're lucky, you are like me and don't need to do it to stay good-looking at all. Then again I get a lot of exercise daily by cycling/walking to work, etc...)

 

[Lugbzurg]

This "friendzoned" term is incredibly stupid. You don't have the right to own whoever you want. Either she likes you or she doesn't she doesn't belong to you. She is not required to meet your life-changing demands.

 

[Cabisco]

How I view the 'friendzone': You really like someone romantically and they don't feel the same back but you see them all time so it's always on your mind and you an idealised image of how perfect it would be because just look at how great you're getting on now.

So yeah the friendzone sucks but it can't be helped. Loving anything and not having it returned sucks. It can't be helped though, you can't force emotion.

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

I don't really care for the "friendzone" thing and most guys I know don't use the word in their vocabularies. I mean, I believe it exists, it's just not a word I'd use. As a guy I can say I've been "rejected" plenty of times, just not "friendzoned".

But anyway, it's not that hard to follow the "friendoned" logic is it? Even if you don't agree with it's existence and believe it's just a construct of the ego, the word is used by many to describe a pretty common scenario. A person builds some sort of attraction after a while for someone they know, but the feelings aren't returned and they'd prefer things remain the same.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing once you get over the disappointment. I think it's even possible (well it does happen according to some posts) for that person to get out of the friendzone and manage to strike a close relationship down the road, but this may depend on the people.

That said, I'm not actually interested in defending the concept and everything I want to say has already been said. I do, however, take issue with the word "entitled" being thrown around to describe every MAN who ever felt confused or frustrated when they were turned down by someone they really liked.

Most of us are very well aware she is not obligated to say yes or even let us down gently. We know we're the ones taking the risk when we put our heart out there, and we know there are also douchebags who scream foul and wish to be the victim (hint: there is none and there is no perpetrator). But these are feelings and emotions we're talking about, rational thinking isn't a magic wand that heal a broken heart over night and people have different ways of managing stress.

Hell, most of the guys on here including myself would consider themselves to still be in the early stages of discovering dating and relationships. Bad luck just really sucks, but what does "entitlement" have to do with that? I'm quite sick of seeing people like me compared to the worst kind of assholes for expressing any kind of frustration on the topic of relationships and rejection, for not having stones of steel at all times ever.

(Again I've never actually been friendzoned, but flat out rejected many times by girls I approached as a teenager. And if it also has to be re-iterated, I harbor no grudge towards those girls at all.)

 

[Realitycrash]

So If I don't find you attractive, don't guilt me by saying I only date 'shallow' people, simply because you yourself aren't attractive. Because I used to be heavily overweight, and I'm damn sure you wouldn't be even looking twice at me back then.

You'll date who you wish, of course, but I feel that it is relevant to point out that the good-looking chaps amongst us will not stay good-looking forever. Looks are impossible to maintain over time but superior traits of character- upstanding honesty, courage in the face of certain defeat and relentlessness- are much easier to maintain. Pursuing a mate because he looks good and works out three hours a day over another who is less striking but would nevertheless die for you may not be the wisest investment of your time.
This applies to both genders, obviously.

Overall I'm just annoyed that apparently people of both genders think that it is abhorrent to care about finding someone physically attractive. 'I'm so funny and nice, so the fact that I smell bad and don't work out shouldn't matter!'.

Hey hey now, all this "work out" thing is a bit overrated. I mean, you should be doing it for your own health, not to impress the ladies/gentlemen (or if you're lucky, you are like me and don't need to do it to stay good-looking at all. Then again I get a lot of exercise daily by cycling/walking to work, etc...)

One of the major parts of life (for many people) is to find a partner. It's kind of a big deal. So I'm unsure if saying someone 'should do it for their health' is more valid than someone saying 'you should do it to impress people'.

 

[Vegosiux]

One of the major parts of life (for many people) is to find a partner. It's kind of a big deal. So I'm unsure if saying someone 'should do it for their health' is more valid than someone saying 'you should do it to impress people'.

I think it is, but of course we're talking opinions here. Just the way I see things. I mean, there's already a whole can o' worms open about what you're "expected" to do by the society to be found attractive, I'd really rather not pour more oil on that fire.

 

[Realitycrash]

One of the major parts of life (for many people) is to find a partner. It's kind of a big deal. So I'm unsure if saying someone 'should do it for their health' is more valid than someone saying 'you should do it to impress people'.

I think it is, but of course we're talking opinions here. Just the way I see things. I mean, there's already a whole can o' worms open about what you're "expected" to do by the society to be found attractive, I'd really rather not pour more oil on that fire.

We all have different standards for what we find attractive. So fair enough. I just don't accept the whole 'I'm beautiful on the inside'-excuse. That might very well be, but then you'll make a perfect friend for me, not partner.

 

[Lieju]

Now if girls were more honest with their supposedly friendzoned guys, they would be free of any responsibility they may have for causing such feelings. Same goes for guys (though less common) that do the same to girls.

Also, be honest and to-the-point about your feelings if you want that in return.

If a guy doesn't ask straight out or make it clear he wants a relationship, it's unfair to expect the girl to read their mind either.
I have had some pretty vague relationships with guys where I had no idea if they were pursuing me romantically.
We'd hang out together and do stuff together, and then they'd give me some expensive heart-shaped locket out of nowhere...

I think a lot of young guys (and girls) are kinda wishy-washy about their courtship.
I think that if you do that you can't complain if the object of your attraction doesn't clearly answer to your feelings.