In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

[Ieyke]

if you feel your freindzoned tell her, i felt much better after being rejected then not knowing.

Exactly.
Uncertainty and doubt are horrible horrible things.

 

[Soundwave]

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.

They don't need to be defended from the person that isn't sleeping with them. The defense is the argument that they're not sexual predators, as a small vocal minority of internet feminists are claiming.

 

[generals3]

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.

Okay.. replace "not treating that person as a human being" with "treating that person as a human being to whom you were not capable of being honest, towards whose feelings you have displayed no regard and yet whom you still somehow have the delusional audacity to feel you ever deserved."

Better?

I hope that by putting both paragraphs below each other you will be able how contradictory you're being. On one hand you say that making yourself unhappy for someone else is not good. But at the same time you describe someone doing just that as someone who is "treating that person as a human being to whom you were not capable of being honest, towards whose feelings you have displayed no regard and yet whom you still somehow have the delusional audacity to feel you ever deserved."

Having gone through such a scenario (back in them olden teenager days) I can say you're being extremely hypocritical. I'm sorry but no I don't feel like me not thinking tormenting myself is worth whatever benefits someone has from said friendship. If said person cannot understand that than that person is probably the bad friend/person. Because yes being around someone you have feelings for which aren't returned is not the best plan. (Well it may depend on the person)

 

[Yuno Gasai]

They don't need to be defended from the person that isn't sleeping with them. The defense is the argument that they're not sexual predators, as a small vocal minority of internet feminists are claiming.

If a vocal minority want to make sweeping allegations on people who believe they've been friendzoned, that's their prerogative. I find their arguments entertaining, particularly when they fail to back their accusations up (such sensationalist standpoints are rarely supported by evidence or even anything remotely close to a case study). I still question whether or not they need defending, though - these accusations aren't particularly threatening as such. I'd say they're probably closer to being annoying than anything else.

 

[Tarfeather]

Now that I'm in thought about this, let me share an observation that could be unrelated to the "friend zone", depending on how you define it, but it's very much related to being locked in a state of "sexual desire, yet non-sexuality".

I have four very clear(and many more unclear cases) in my personal history where a girl would welcome my increased attention. So what do I mean by increased attention? Always responding to what they say, always thinking about the implications for a time, always trying to understand them and say things that could make them feel better.

I have the distinct impression that in these cases, the girl would actually welcome all that. She would start placing higher value on the relationship(I wouldn't necessary call it friendship, because that IMO implies an established mutual bond). I think there have been situations like this where I was one of the few most important contacts to the girl, possibly the only person they had who they could trust to.. well, "be a friend". Actually care about them, what they are, and what they say, without the intention of some kind of exploit.

Personally, I've always had friends whom I could rely on for that. It certainly is important. But when there's two people you've known for 2, 4, 8 years and whom you can rely on in any situation, you stop seeing it as such a "critical" thing. It's like food in a western country. You have it, you can rely on having it, you don't really know what it's like not to have it.

So what you have is an asymmetrical situation:
- The thing you desire from them is related to sexuality and romance
- The thing they desire from you is related to trust and care

For this to work, we need compromises. But when it comes to sexuality, girls don't *do* compromises. (*) All the examples I've mentioned, in this situation would get very uncomfortable: Clearly, they need something from you. But the thing they could give in return, they do not wish to give.

Now, this is a different type of "friend zone". The situation isn't, as apparently happens to many others posting here, that X loves Y, but Y considers X "just" a friend, so that the easiest choice for X is just to walk out. No, in this case if X walks out, they leave someone who needs them standing in the rain. And that's not a fun choice if you actually care about the other.

Furthermore, this is a pattern. Maybe not for everyone, but at least in my experience. Some people in this world are treated pretty badly, and lack a certain "being accepted" in a non-superficial way. Yet, these same people, at least the female ones, do not seem to link this kind of acceptance(which I'm tempted to call "love" - because, yeah, sure, I love my friends in not that fundamentally a different way a husband loves a wife, or a mother loves a child) to sexuality or romance. Which is, you know, weird.

Anyway, not sure what I'm babbling on about. I guess this is a pretty separate discussion.

(*) This is actually pretty funny. Apparently, involving any kind of sexuality in a friendship is *frightening* to many girls. But visiting a friend, going out to party with his gang, then getting drunk and starting something with one of those(who are strangers to her) in front of the friend's eyes is fine? Heh.

 

[Soundwave]

If a vocal minority want to make sweeping allegations on people who believe they've been friendzoned, that's their prerogative. I find their arguments entertaining, particularly when they fail to back their accusations up (such sensationalist standpoints are rarely supported by evidence or even anything remotely close to a case study). I still question whether or not they need defending, though - these accusations aren't particularly threatening as such. I'd say they're probably closer to being annoying than anything else.

Well, you know how the internet is with sweeping generalizations and allegations(un-ironic-statement). Personally, I'd rather see that sort of argument laughed out of the internet, but for some reason people keep taking them seriously!

 

[Ieyke]

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.

I'd argue that that's outright "rejection by a friend".

The Friendzone is when you find out that they have some sort of feelings too and are unwilling to risk your existing friendship to explore the possibility.
The Friendzone sucks ass so badly because you KNOW the possibility is there, but you have to act like it isn't or else figure out how to make it happen.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed, except the bit where "they can't turn them on" implies rejection. "They can't take the chance" would be more accurate to a Friendzone situation, IMO.

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.

Agreed. How has this gotten confused with the Friendzone? This is just an even higher level of the common douchebaggery of guys lying to women to sleep with them....

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.

Wait, is that a thing now?
SMH

 

[Tarfeather]

The 'friend zone' isn't a legitimate thing, and as such doesn't require a defence.

I think we've shown quite a few ways to use the word 'friend zone' in which it's both a real thing, and a legitimate concern? I think this whole thread may be a response to a pretty bold (and unsurprisingly offensive) statement by Jim Sterling that entertaining the idea of a "friend zone" and/or suggesting that it's happened to you immediately means that you think you deserve getting sex for being nice. Which is something I could take apart in so many places, but I guess the main issue is that it puts a bunch of people in a category that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Relationships add a whole lot of pressure. People trying to impress each other.

Take it from me, impressed women are the worst love partners. There are much, much better foundations for a relationship. Of course, if you try for such a stable foundation, you'll exclude a good share of the potential "candidates", but eh..

 

[Soundwave]

It's a stupid concept created by those with a fragile sense of self worth, to shift responsibility away from a personal incompatibility or an unrequited romantic interest. Humans do it all the time; we have excuses and labels for every shortcoming you can think of. "It's not that I'm unattractive to them," "It's not that we simply aren't sexually compatible." "It's because I got put in the 'friendzone.'"

Puh-leze.

Have you put your same sex friends in the "friendzone"? No. Of course not. They're just friends. And that's the fucking point. Men and women can be just friends too. It's not a state. It's not a condition. It's not a "thing". You're just fucking friends.

[HEADING=1]Men and Women Can be Friends[/HEADING]​

Illidan Stormrage Couldn't just be friends! Now look what's happened. Maybe if you had been a more emotionally supportive jailer the Black Temple wouldn't be so full of demons.

 

[Ieyke]

Relationships add a whole lot of pressure. People trying to impress each other.

Take it from me, impressed women are the worst love partners. There are much, much better foundations for a relationship. Of course, if you try for such a stable foundation, you'll exclude a good share of the potential "candidates", but eh..

Exactly.
Part of the reason several of my female friends and I have encroached on the Friendzone so many times is because we know we ARE the stable foundations. There's a reason we're such good friends in the first place and have been for sooo soooo long.

Excluding a "good share" of the potential candidates by avoiding those who'd make terrible foundations...puts it lightly.

Nonetheless, even if "impress" is the wrong word, there's always a period of time where you're trying to put your best foot forward and not stumble into ways to lodge your foot in your mouth.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Having read through six pages of this argument, it seems that main bone of contention is what people are actually defining the 'friend-zone' as. And I would say that each definition has a different degree to which it should be derided and mocked. The definition that seems to have most people up in arms is the idea that a male has befriended a female with the sole desire to have sex with her, but can't bring himself to make any advances. They spend time together, as friends, and after some time the female begins dating someone else, who the male views as inferior. He then complains about being put in the 'friend-zone'. Personally, I can understand why this would annoy and anger a great many people, as the entire friendship is based on a lie, with the male not being forward with his intentions from the off, and ascribing blame to the female for some perceived slight that is in no way her fault. On the other hand, I don't think that the prevalence of this is nearly as widespread as many seem to believe, and I fear this definition has almost become a strawman. Borrowing a friend in order to look on the third hand, due to the widespread belief that this is the default definition of the 'friend-zone' I can understand why people would automatically assume why it is this being discussed.

A second definition that some people seem to be using is that the 'friend-zone' is a state where two people have been friends for a certain amount of time, with both being happy as friends. But one of the pair develops romantic feelings for the other, makes these feelings known, and is told that the friendship is too good to risk ruining in the event of a break-up. The rejected party would then be defined as being in the 'friend-zone'. I have a bit more sympathy for someone in this situation, but personally don't see a need to define it as a 'friend-zone', as the relationship is actually in the same state as it was before any romantic declarations were made, albeit with a probable period of awkwardness between the people involved.

The third definition I've seen is that the 'friend-zone' is simply the state of being friends with a person. This is the definition that I can personally agree with most, but it is also the most redundant, as there really isn't much need to define a friendship any further.

So overall, I find the term 'friend-zone' to be redundant. If you use the first definition, then quite frankly you have much more worrying problems than the fact that someone doesn't want to date you. And if you use the second or third, then there is no really reason to further define your relationship with someone.

If anyone wishes to disagree, agree, refute, insult or otherwise respond to my definitions or views, then I am more than happy to discuss them.

 

[Crimsonmonkeywar]

...

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

 

[b3nn3tt]

...

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

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

 

[Soundwave]

...

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

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

Perhaps it is best to think of the friendzone as some sort of "place" where "people end up regardless of their intent"

 

[Spacemonkey430]

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.

What people don't seem to realize is that the problem with the friendzone comes when somebody leads you on and manipulates your feelings. And it seems that "oh no guys aren't allowed to have feelings" but for real, having your feelings manipulated or being strung along is not fun for anybody. Guy or girl, nobody deserves to be strung along like that. 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. So yes, often you get the guys who want a "nice guy deserves sex" punch card which is ridiculous. And there are the people who simply can't accept rejection. But honestly, the real friendzone come when people get strung along by the person they are interested in, fed false hope and false promises. Not all guys are just spineless wimps, some get manipulated. But its easy for people to just sit there and call them wimps, so why not?

 

[b3nn3tt]

...

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

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

Perhaps it is best to think of the friendzone as some sort of "place" where "people end up regardless of their intent"

In that case, though, I still feel that the term is redundant, because that 'place' is friendship, I don't think it needs further classification.

 

[Soundwave]

In that case, though, I still feel that the term is redundant, because that 'place' is friendship, I don't think it needs further classification.

It's not "just a friendship" though, because it's being spurned. It's a friendship you don't want to have. That's an interesting and unique idea in of itself.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

I agree I always considered the freindzone to be when someone attempts to pursue a relationship and is turned down. And in turn is given the role of friend, as in "I think we should just be friends". This was always my idea of it and I was so bewildered when I kept seeing form posts and comments, as well of the rants of a few feminists about it being "disgusting". Not knowing what there interpretation of the phrase meant.

 

[b3nn3tt]

In that case, though, I still feel that the term is redundant, because that 'place' is friendship, I don't think it needs further classification.

It's not "just a friendship" though, because it's being spurned. It's a friendship you don't want to have. That's an interesting and unique idea in of itself.

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.

 

[Soundwave]

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.

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"