In defence of the 'Friendzoned'

b3nn3tt

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
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.
 

b3nn3tt

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
Crimsonmonkeywar said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
Crimsonmonkeywar said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Oct 8, 2012
59
0
0
krazykidd said:
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

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
Soundwave said:
b3nn3tt said:
Crimsonmonkeywar said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Apr 2, 2008
1,974
0
0
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

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
Soundwave said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
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"
 

Xman490

Doctorate in Danger
May 29, 2010
1,186
0
0
krazykidd said:
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

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
Soundwave said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
generals3 said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
Soundwave said:
b3nn3tt said:
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

New member
Sep 20, 2009
645
0
0
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

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
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

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
LetalisK said:
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.