In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[Crimsonmonkeywar]

Thought I'd chime in with my own definition and example.

A boy meets a girl and they become close, even talk about things on an intimate level that can be borderline suggestive. Boy and Girl date other people with an obvious resentment or disdain to each others partner, becomes close and sexually tense when one is single and the other is not. Both constantly deny accusations of the attraction and discus with each other how the attraction is non existent and would ruin the 'friendship' and constantly use the term 'friend' when things get sexually tense. Both truly not wanting to ruin their relationship but both also having a desire to wanting more. They'll both probably eventually confront it and choose, but the feeling will never go way. For me in order to be 'friendzoned' the attraction has to be mutual, but the decision to embrace it or ignore it does not. It is a complicated, odd place to be, but the joy of each others company is enough to deal with/ignore it.

Just wanted to say that, not so sure I understand how it's used today or by others.

 

[Laser Priest]

It could be seen as unrequited love or attraction, but it seems like people usually use it carrying more horrible connotations.

Snip

As this post said, it seems that it's used quite often to victimize the rejected person. That much is understandable. Rejection sucks, and I see no problem with being upset about it. But people often use "friendzoned" as if it's an act of malice.

What I don't like about the term is how it seems to take everything out of the "friendzoned" person's hands. Yes, expressing your feelings about someone can be difficult, and the people who act as if it's as easy as "just say it" don't seem to understand how difficult it can be for some people. Personally, I have trouble communicating with anybody, let alone someone I have feelings for. But I accept that as a flaw of my own. To me, saying I've been friendzone'd makes it seem like it was someone else's doing. As if there was nothing I could do to stop it.

And I feel at this point, whether we want it to be or not, the idea of a "friendzone" is always going to be associated with the so-called "nice guys" who think that simply acting human to another human being should warrant some sort of romantic feeling in return.

Overall, I hate the idea of it. It seems like most of the time, it holds the person back, whether causing them not to move on or if they blame it instead of acknowledging and seeking to improve on their own flaws. But still, I understand that it's not always as easy as people say to make your feelings clear. Still, it's always better to gather the courage to do so. A relationship's not just going to fall on you for being nice. Even if it's the harder thing to do, it's better than simply sitting in self-pity.

 

[Jared Jeanquart]

The reason that "friendzone" is considered dodgy because of the framing of the situation.

Being "friendzoned" implies that it is the girl who is at fault for not offering up sex. People who talk about the friendzone as as place they accidentally landed themselves in (through their own low confidence, anxiety and awkwardness) is something I'm on board with.

There's often the implication of "who the fuck wants friends I wanted some god damn poontang!" in friendzone talk but if you don't make that assumption then fine, use it.

I have enough friends. What I don't have is a girlfriend. If I try to get a girlfriend and instead wind up with a regular friend (that stops interacting with me the moment I stop trying), I think its reasonable that I'm a little miffed. Not at the person in question, but at life in general. Makes you wonder what it is that's wrong with you. Or what's wrong with the world/culture. And why no one can give you a straight answer on what you're supposed to do about it.

Just saying. You act as though you're confused why someone would be disappointed at not being allowed to have any sort of intimate physical contact with another human being. You're either asexual, or incredibly obtuse.

 

[Jared Jeanquart]

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.

So...what kind of magical relationships are you familiar with where no party actually receives any benefit from the other? Where all love is the incourruptable pure pureness of adults, and utterly untainted by any sort of personal needs or insecurities? Where human beings just shouldn't have to be subjected to any sort of relationship or interaction other than this pure pureness?

Because it'd like to visit this magical world. It sounds quite wonderful.

Sorry, but I'm about ready to flip the table over and walk out. I just almost got assaulted tonight, for trying to ask a way-too-drunk-girl if she was okay with being driven home by a alpha dudebro who was very obviously planning to "put the moves on her." Me and my friend had to fucking flee the location. Alpha dude dudebro's probably banging the drunk girl right now, and I'm at home on the internet, while every girl I tried to talk to blew me off before I could get a word in edgewise. Forgive my sarcasm.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, and we are all very much aware that this is irrelevant to the "friendzone" mythology. The friendzone, so the imaginary construct says, overwhelmingly happens to men, by women. I've yet to see a single woman come to the Internet crying about having been put in the friend zone.

You're shifting the language here to try and make it look like this is a universal human trait, when it isn't. It's a technique men use to evade facing the truth about their relationships with women (and potentially gay men evading the truth about their relationships with other men.) Switching to genderless nouns like "people" is just away to avoid discussing what this meme is really about.

So, we should treat women differently than we treat men? Not treat both as "people"?

Both. Either. It doesn't really matter.

It matters. Can still feel rejected when the other person just wants to be "fuck buddies" while you want a serious relationship. This isn't just about getting or not getting sex.

The fact is, men don't generally "friendzone" women, so de-gendering the meme is just a needless complication.

Men generally don't reject women's romantic advances? Alright, I'm too lazy to argue against that at this hour, so let's assume I'm accepting that for now.

Why do you think that is the case?

Except you didn't see it. Not once in the clip did anyone say that men friendzone women.

Funny, coming from someone who not so recently made an argument based on "It's not explicitly stated, obviously."

It's not a jab, it's a fact. No where in the scene is there any implication made that men might friendzone women.

You can say "it's a fact" as many times as you like. Doesn't change reality. You don't get to talk about what's happening in my head as if you know it. See the very bottom.

My apologies, it's a mis-type. I meant to say, "Things getting in the way". Another element which there is no mention of in the clip, explicit or otherwise.

What, "long established friendship getting in the way of romantic potential" isn't implied?

Feel free not to accept it then. I stand by it.

Of course you do. After all, this isn't about an exchange of ideas, it's about you kicking my virtual behind in a so-called discussion, isn't it? Have to keep the pressure on the enemy and all that.

Seriously. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to speak for me. Leave the talk about my motivations and my thought processes to me. Chances are, I'll know more about them than you do, and that I'll present them more accurately than you could ever hope to. And if you can't handle that basic etiquette, well, then I'd really prefer not to talk to you again.

 

[Jared Jeanquart]

This whole thread seems over-complicated. From what I've gathered "the friendzone" is either one of two things

1: You have not been clear in your intentions when building a relationship with a desired partner, leading them to assume you only desired friendship. Or prior relationship history (living nearby, practically family, ect)makes the idea far to weird in their eyes and while there is a little more fault to be given toward the approaching party for being vague- you could also reasonably expect the other side to at least consider that there could be a sexual/romantic element at play.

or, and this one might go by another name: When party X is using party Y with the almost-promises of possible sexual reward in return for favors done. Where party Y is deluded into thinking that, if they put enough work in then eventually party X will pay out

your second one might involve party X not realizing what they're doing, and party Y being retarded.

 

[Vegosiux]

So now you've chosen to waste our time with strawman comments. You know quite well that I never said any such thing.

You berated me for using genderless nouns and generally talking about men and women both as "people".

I'm sorry if I interpreted that as if you wanting a distinction to be made.

I know very well how I feel about my relationships with other people. When I say "it doesn't really matter", it doesn't really matter.

Fine, doesn't matter as far as you're concerned. It would matter to me.

No, that's not what "friendzone" means, not even the weaker version you're trying to pass off as the real meaning.

I...don't actually recall myself ever stating anything along the lines of "The friendzone means this and this." However, let me go through this chronologically.

First, generals3 brought up that clip from Friends.

Then, you went "Did you just bring up a clip from Friends as sociological evidence? No wonder we can't have nice things."

Next, I noted that's actually the origin of the expression.

Next, you said "Where the word comes from has zero bearing on how it is used."

Next, I said I have not yet seen any solid citation/proof that the term "friendzone" means what you say it means, even while I know it often gets used that way.

And finally, you brought up that clip that, in your own words has zero bearing on how the word is used, which, I assume was your very clear argument as to what the true meaning of the word is, seeing as it's the only argument you gave me.

So yeah, I admit, I've gone about this all wrong. I should have just told you "You yourself said that clip has zero bearing on how the word is used, why the hell are you now trying to present is as something to demonstrate the true meaning of the word?"

Secondly, I do wonder what you think my definition of "friendzone" is. You can quote me if you want.

Where would it have been implied? I didn't see a single reference to their friendship getting in the way.

Apart from the entire "if you don't make a move now, she'll never think of you as anything other than a friend" talk, you mean? Looks quite like "won't get further with her, because there'll be a friendship there she won't want to put at risk" to me, but if you don't see it the same way, fine.

Not at all. That's a rather paranoid-sounding accusation.

Feel free not to accept it then. I stand by it.

It's obvious by now you're going to insist on "friendzone" meaning something other than what many of us have laid out very clear arguments for what it really means. If you want to convince us to change our minds, you're going to need something a bit more convincing than what you've given so far.

Actually, the only thing I'm going to insist on is that the term has to simply go and be forgotten, which I have done in numerous similar threads in the past, mind, and that people should communicate better.

And I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind, either. They're your minds, change them yourselves if you want to, and don't if you don't.

PS: Love how you've gone into plural here. Subtle, very subtle.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So...what kind of magical relationships are you familiar with where no party actually receives any benefit from the other?

Did I posit such a thing?

Ironically given your choice of language, the kind of relationship I pursue and advocate is kind of similar to the sociological concept of the "pure relationship", meaning a relationship which is entirely self-justifying and only exists for the duration, however brief, that it is mutually beneficial.

What I'm advocating against here is the idea that you should ever put someone else's happiness before your own, because actually doing so has the opposite effect to the one intended. Putting yourself to inconvenience for someone else because you like them and want to help them is fine, going out of your way to help someone when there's no conceivable benefit beyond a personal feeling of satisfaction is fine. Making yourself unhappy so that someone else will be happy is not fine, it is not admirable or selfless, it is in fact one of the most selfish and borderline abusive things you can do.

Imagine you are a lifeguard at a pool, and every day the same guy shows up and brings you an ice cream just because he thinks you're really awesome. That would be cool, right? Now imagine this same guy brings you an ice cream but every time he does so he inevitably slips over, falls in the pool and immediately starts drowning because he can't swim. Are you:

a) Happy about receiving an ice-cream.
b) Unhappy because you have to keep rescuing this guy.

Do you..

a) Want this guy to continue so that you can get more ice cream.
b) Are more concerned that this person does not constantly put themselves in danger.

If you can't take even the most basic steps to look after yourself, then you are essentially creating an obligation on the part of those around you to do so for you, and whatever happiness you feel you're providing by being a martyr is inevitably not going to be worth it to the people you're trying to "help".

Sorry, but I'm about ready to flip the table over and walk out.

Why?

It sounds like you tried to do a good thing. From what you've said I can't say for sure that you did it in the right way, but it's admirable that you tried.

Getting frustrated because people don't behave in the way you would prefer/think is right isn't particularly useful. Like I said, you did (or tried to do) a good thing, that should be what matters. The fact that other people are dicks doesn't impact on you, and you shouldn't be doing things in the expectation that people won't be dicks. Most people are dicks, it doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to do better.

Incidentally, if you want me to guess your underlying problem it's that this still really matters to you. Very few people with the experience to know better are going to willingly walk into a situation where their actions have that kind of consequence for someone else, because it's like walking into a minefield.

You'll hear the word "confidence" thrown around a lot, and often it's quite hard to tell what it means, but one way to get a handle is to think "if I were this other person, what risks would I foresee in this situation". Because you want the answer to be "none".

 

[ForumSafari]

This whole thread seems over-complicated. From what I've gathered "the friendzone" is either one of two things

I'd add a third thing as well:

A lot of people seem almost cowardly when it comes to any form of confrontation, during my teenage years I knew loads of people in the friend zone - or so they thought. What I actually knew were a large number of people that had been told 'maybe' or 'I like you as a friend' as a way to avoid saying 'no' and 'you are not attractive to me'.

 

[UrinalDook]

I have some sympathy for people who feel they're victims of 'friendzoning', even if I do agree the internet has co-opted the term somewhat to become losers whining about rejection. The reason for my sympathy is not so much that I've 'been there', but because I've done it. I can think of two girls I've definitely friendzoned. That is to say, I know I intentionally led them on, stirred up some sexual tension and then flat out rejected them when they actually asked about the possibility of a relationship. Worse, I've proceeded to suggest I might have 'come around' some time later and got with them, only to flat out reject anything more serious again straight after. Admittedly, alcohol was involved at several key points, but I'm still aware it was horribly unfair of me to act like that. Especially as I kept them around as friends, kept seeing them and kept getting on with them. The more responsible thing to do after rejecting someone would probably to give them some space, rather than popping round for an afternoon cuppa and a chat. Unfortunately, I'm more selfish than responsible.

So yeah, to flip it back to the more common setup, I can totally understand how a guy might feel hard done by a girl he's become close to insisting they're better as friends despite some obviously reciprocated sexual tension. And some of the lies you tell to avoid hurting people too much ("It's not that I don't think you're pretty, etc.") can, in retrospect, come across as incredibly patronising. I have massive sympathy for any love struck fool who ever receives the line "I love you like a brother". That must really sting, and I have no problem with people coming up with a term to describe that specific set of feelings, even if that term has become somewhat misused.

 

[Soundwave]

In this case, the person dehumanizing the other has lost the moral high ground and/or the credibility of their claims. I have been on both sides of unrequited love, and have had lapses in my own better judgement in both cases.

The best thing, I think, is to analyze the specific situation, from an emotionally detached perspective. It's hard, of course, but if s/he doesn't love you, that's really it, you should probably move on. If they're using you for emotional support, or exploiting you for favors, or anything like that, then shame on them, you definitely need to move on.

If you're not sure about the nature of the situation, ask a trusted friend what they think. If you have a friend in a situation like that, sparing their feelings might seem alright, it is the morally wrong thing to do.

Anyone claiming that you should be "happy to be just their friend" is not your friend. At the least they are being conceited. Expecting someone else to endure the emotional pain of being constantly reminded that they reject you as a mate is unfair, callous and ridiculous.

I am in no way saying that anyone owes anyone else sex. The suggestion that argument is merely about sex is wrong, unsympathetic, dehumanizing and unhealthy.

 

[generals3]

Oh god, did you seriously just try to use an episode of "Friends" as sociological evidence? This is why we can't have nice things.

No i used friends as evidence because the expression comes from there. We are talking about what a word means. And I would have sworn its source would be relevant. (and i also know for a fact it is used that way by many and when i think of it it's also according to how it was used in friends, so i really don't see why your definition, i actually come across less often, is somehow "The Definition")

But the critical implication is still there. In this case, not with Rachel in particular, but the implication is that it is a result of women's nature. The unstated notion is that women have some mysterious, inscrutable tendency to assign men to categories over time. The whole point of that gag is that Rachel might be attracted to whoever David Schwimmer's character is, but if he doesn't "make a move" she will re-assign him to a friend role. That's blaming women for the relationship. It's shitty.

The only direct implication there was is that if he didn't actually do anything and make his feelings clear she would not be aware of them and thus not consider them. I have known a very unique case of mutual friend zoning (quite funny when you think about it) which involved two people who had a thing for each other but because none made a move so nothing ever happened. There is always someone who needs to make a move in some way. And the only direct implication here is that Ross was supposed to be the one doing it. (let's not forget that Ross has had a crush on Rachel since Highschool, never did anything about it and nothing ever happened. So the assumption that this would continue if he wouldn't change his approach doesn't seem far fetched nor requires any assumptions you conveniently made)

But even if we would accept that the gag implied that she would have categorized him how can you claim it is a phenomenon which was claimed to only and always apply to women? Yes this scenario involves a woman but it's not because it does somehow it would mean whatever is being said only and always applies to women. Heck i know male friends who have clearly stated they didn't want to have sex with certain friends for non-attractiveness related reasons (like: it would make things awkward or simply "she's just a too good friend). So categorization happens everywhere all the time so making the assumption a person may categorize you in a way doesn't seem evil in any way. (let alone in a context like Friends where there is plenty of precedent to suggest that will be so)

And finally, how can the blame lie on her if HE is the one being told that if he doesn't do something X will happen. He's pretty much being put in the role of the one responsible of the predicament.

But i'll leave you to your creative thinking, because it's actually fascinating to see how much you can look into things just to fabricate things that could somehow turn the situation as you see fit.

Now you're lying. I never said "she rejected me" was wrong, nor did I say either was immoral. If you can't participate honestly, don't participate.

"Logical implication" =/= "you said that". Your claims regarding the friendzone and why the term was wrong could have applied to saying "she rejected me". Hence why logically your claim implied it. (I would also like to mention that this is not an issue anymore considering since than you further clarified your stance and this does not apply anymore)

But yes, I do think using "friendzone" is bad. Guess what. You're going to be judged on how you choose to express yourself. The moment you start telling me I can't judge you for what you say, then it's you who is thought-policing me.

You can judge me. And i can judge you on your judgement and say it's stupid. Just like someone could judge a woman for rejecting him and you could judge him for judging her.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I've always seen the "friendzone" as this:

When you share a mutual friendship with another individual and you feel romantic feelings towards them. You make some form of advance with the intention of starting a relationship. The other person deflects your advances and you remain a friend, forever to remain a friend.

I've always classified the other person in this case as oblivious to the aforementioned romantic advances. Rejection is when the individual knowingly and very clearly says no to your offer. The "friendzone" is where the individual apparently has so little feeling for you as a potential mate that they don't even recognise your actions as romantic affection.

The friendzone is therefore considered an involuntary position to be in. However I feel it's more of a hypothetical scenario because being clearer with your intentions would easily solve the issue. It's an excuse for those who can't say rejection.

For the record: I've been rejected plenty. I've remained friends with some of these people. I do not consider myself to have ever been "friendzoned."

 

[Weaver]

to me it's simple:
Make friends with someone.
Fall in love with them.
Find out they don't feel the same way, but want to stay friends.

You're in the friendzone.

If you've never had this happen, to where it becomes painful to simply be around that person; then I don't think you really understand what it's like. Personally, I start cutting the other person out of my life at this point. They might just see me as a friend, but I'm in love with them and it becomes too hard for me. I can't just shut off my feelings just like they can't turn them on.

Someone pretending to be friends with someone so they can have sex with them and failing is not the friendzone. And anyone who sees it as such is completely misunderstanding. Moreover, it really bothers me when someone is genuinely in love with someone and confesses to them only to be told they're pretending to be a "nice guy" because the women in question needs to justify her rejection. Some women seem to think they want a loving, caring mate but they don't in actuality.

"If he was REALLY a nice, caring guy, I would want to date him. If he was REALLY a being kind to me I'd certainly know it. But I don't want to date him so he must be FAKING it!"

Just admit you don't want to date guys like that, or he's too ugly, or too fat, or too whatever and stop lying to yourself.

 

[Tarfeather]

I have enough friends. What I don't have is a girlfriend. If I try to get a girlfriend and instead wind up with a regular friend (that stops interacting with me the moment I stop trying), I think its reasonable that I'm a little miffed. Not at the person in question, but at life in general. Makes you wonder what it is that's wrong with you. Or what's wrong with the world/culture. And why no one can give you a straight answer on what you're supposed to do about it.

Just saying. You act as though you're confused why someone would be disappointed at not being allowed to have any sort of intimate physical contact with another human being. You're either asexual, or incredibly obtuse.

That sort of was my impression, too. Mind, I don't know the term much outside of examples like this: http://abstrusegoose.com/419

It's quite clear that strip depicts the "friend zone" as a place a person might be put in, not as a kind of relationship between two people in particular. One person rejects you - fine. Every girl you ever befriend wants to be just friends and nothing more? Uhm.. something seems wrong. With someone. Most likely all of society, but that's beside the point.


Being an introvert, the term "friendzone" seems indeed iffy though. I only call those friends who I care about intrinsically, who I "miss" if they're not around. So you could say a "friend" to me is something borderline romantic. At any given point in my life I've had only 3-4 of these. If a larger percentage of that would be females, that would actually be kinda nice. It would, in term of "romantic satisfaction" be an improvement. But even just this "friendship" thing is pretty hard to accomplish with girls. It requires being liked for what you are, and being able to share your inner thought, which in my case requires the other to be smart, self-reflecting, honest and at least a little bit interesting in "geeky" subjects. That's not something you find in many girls or women.

So in my view, the real issue is the female stereotype - the "friend zone" then is a rather unnecessary description of the fact that, if you have one friend of the opposite gender, missing out on romance is rather likely.

 

[Tarfeather]

What I'm advocating against here is the idea that you should ever put someone else's happiness before your own, because actually doing so has the opposite effect to the one intended. Putting yourself to inconvenience for someone else because you like them and want to help them is fine, going out of your way to help someone when there's no conceivable benefit beyond a personal feeling of satisfaction is fine. Making yourself unhappy so that someone else will be happy is not fine, it is not admirable or selfless, it is in fact one of the most selfish and borderline abusive things you can do.

You wouldn't believe how many people don't understand this. I'm impressed enough to read that so explicitly that I must quote it.

However, I think you're coming to the wrong conclusion. Let's look over it again:
1. Everything one does, one does out of self-interest(intrinsically caring about somebody else is usually just a symptom of having taken their "happiness" into your own "mood feedback loop" - Yes, you do care about them, but ultimately you act as a response to some internal stimuli)
2. Being "unhappy" isn't the same as "working against your own desires". In fact, unhappyness(the bittersweet kind, exactly the kind in discussion here) can be something stimulating and "good". Just look at how all that romance fiction works.
3. You "care about someone more than yourself", so you want to make them happy disregarding your own happiness.
4. Wait, no, that's bullshit. There must be some other "desire" involved, one that at least currently is worth the unhappiness.

So what I'm saying is, if you find yourself acting a way that doesn't make sense, it doesn't necessarily mean you're doing the "wrong" thing. It might just mean you don't realize what you're actually after.

In the case of romance: Having someone to care about a lot, then becoming unhappy because they don't return your feelings, can actually be "preferable" to simply not having anyone to care about in the first place. It's less boring, it's less "empty". There are some pretty primal factors driving you there.

Of course, it's expensive, too. Someone has to pay the bill. I think trying to shift all the responsibility on the other person is a pretty common trope. Both for the people having an unrequited affection, and for the people being subject to such an affection. For obvious reasons, it's much harder to handle than a regular friendship.

 

[Ieyke]

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.

There very much IS such a thing as the "friendzone".
I know from personal experience, having both been put there and having put girls there.

I've been turned down quite directly on the basis of being "too much like a brother" and "too good of a friend to risk", while they simultaneously agree that I'm actually what they're looking for.
After a long hard battle, I'm actually slowly escaping a friendzone. This has more to do with the woman in question trusting me and herself to be able to not make it weird if it fails.
It's a matter of her overcoming highschool drama notions of "you can't go back to being friends" that is actually stupidly common among adults who can't get over themselves.

In another case, I had a woman friendzoned because I was too hung up on someone else and just couldn't even open my mind to the idea of her. I eventually got past that and she and I were together.

In ANOTHER case, there's a woman who I'll agree is the closest thing to a sister I've ever had. She sees me too much as a brother to risk the complications of a relationship changing the ways we can treat each other. I can completely see her point. There's a whole sort of level of inherent comfort between close siblings that works because there are no major unspoken feelings, and it's a fundamental sort of bond you don't really have to "maintain" because no matter what happens you're "family".
Relationships add a whole lot of pressure. People trying to impress each other.
She and I both know we'd make an awesome couple (we lived together for half a year and she was as close to being my "wife" as possible without being anything more than friends, and it worked fantastically). Even our friends know it. I was willing to give it a shot and take the risk, she wasn't.
*shrug*

And then there's the girl who constantly hits on me when she doesn't have a boyfriend. I've friendzoned her because I can't see her as more than a friend.
Due to how things went with the 2nd girl I mentioned, I've sometimes wondered if maybe I'm just blinded to the possibility, but I'm not.
In a logical way we get along and think alike and have all the same interests, but emotionally I'm not even comfortable there. Our personalities just don't mesh.
Good friend, but JUST a friend.
And still, I wonder about how freakishly similar our opinions and interests are...


Rejection is the extreme of the spectrum, where the possibility of a relationship is just outright denied. Where a friend thinks the idea isn't even worth briefly entertaining and evaluating.

The Friendzone is a nebulous area of hesitation, doubt, fear of change, and preservation of something valued.
The perils of uncertainty and the lingering flicker of hope is why people get stuck in the Friendzone.

Rejection is just a dismissal and summary judgment of something as not an option.

.

Granted, I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who have been rejected and delude into thinking they've been friendzoned to console themselves.
It's not always easy to tell the difference if you're been rejected by a friend who is just letting you down easy.

 

[Wolfhowl the shadow lurker]

I think that men have the right to be upset if a woman does not return his feelings, there would be nothing odd if it was the other way around, feelings get hurt and hearts break men, oddly have both of these.

On the other hand being nice to someone does not give you the right to fuck them or to be mad they won't fuck you, if you feel your freindzoned tell her, i felt much better after being rejected then not knowing.

 

[DragonStorm247]

For me, the "friendzone" is when you ask a girl out and she says "I only see you as a friend."

 

[Yuno Gasai]

The 'friend zone' isn't a legitimate thing, and as such doesn't require a defence. In fact, from the general consensus of people here (and on other sites I lurk) then the following is the most accurate description of the 'friend zone':

Make friends with someone.
Fall in love with them.
Find out they don't feel the same way, but want to stay friends.

I still don't understand why people who consider themselves to be 'friend zoned' are in need of defence. They haven't done anything wrong, and they aren't being attacked - they've simply been rejected.

Some people take to rejection better than others (though I don't think anyone ever actually wants to be on the giving or receiving end), but what they do as a result of being rejected is nobody's fault but their own.

As someone else pointed out earlier, people are so quick to pounce on the accused party that they forget to think about how they might have felt. Not reciprocating someone's affection isn't a crime, and it isn't anything to be punished for. Nor does it make you a valid target of hate.