Yes. I do think we need more friendzone topics. Shutup.
I'm not really interested in this whole idea that people who use the term are passive aggressive potential rapists. My problem is with the term itself. Friendzone. The friendzone doesn't exist, no, logically it can't. The term is blatantly false and misleading. It implies that it's impossible for two people, once friends, to move their relationship to a higher level. This is a baffling concept as one would think a friend would be the ideal choice for a romantic partner. Think about it, if you are going to marry a person and spend the rest of your life with them (hopefully) why would you not want it to be someone you are good friends with? What else is there to base a relationship on? Appearance? Is important, but not gonna be relevant 30 years from now. No, ideally -- I'm talking about monogamous relationships here, obviously, I doubt the term would exist if polygamy was the norm -- you want to find a person who you get along with and share common interests: the very definition of a friend.
Now, I don't really think I have to prove this but people do date friends. All of my two relationships were with girls I was friends with for years first. I've seen many people on these very forums state that they are dating/married to someone they were friends with, and it's a common theme in movies for friends to become lovers.
Okay, so people can go from friends to lovers. Let's talk about why people "think" they've been friendzoned. Okay let's make up an exaggerated example, so boy A has become friends with girl B. Girl B has shiny hair and a symmetrical face while boy A is overweight and smells like damp socks. Now girl B likes boy A as they have bonded over their mutual interest in trading card games and collectible novelty key-chains, but she is always sure to remain upwind. Boy A realizes he has developed romantic feelings toward and either confesses his love to girl B or mumbles into a hat. Girl B is taken aback, she never considered the relationship turning romantic and is, honestly, a little repulsed, but she doesn't want to hurt her friends feelings so she tells him that she "doesn't want to take things forward, lest it ruin their friendship." Boy A is then heartbroken and retreats to tell his story to the internet about how he has been 'friendzoned'. Girl B then presumably goes off to marry douche E who charmed her off her feet by pushing her into a puddle and cheats on her with floozy X who is pregnant with the surrogate child of couple, Ron and Samantha, from down the street.
Now, if you were clever, you noticed that girl B didn't actually reject boy A because they were friends, but rather because she wasn't attracted to him and didn't want to hurt his feelings. I think this is a reasonable sentiment and appears to be a logical excuse. Think about it let's say a girl/boy who you were friends with but not attracted to suddenly wanted to date, what do you say? "Well, I, uh... about that... I wouldn't want to ruin... our friendship! Yes, you see, because if we started dating and things went sour we wouldn't be friends anymore. But you are a nice guy/gal. Really!" I've thought about it, and I really think I would have used this excuse if I were in a situation where I had to reject a friend if I weren't aware at the horrible confusion it causes. It really does seem like a good way to spare their feelings.
But, really, when you boil down to it, this is just plain old rejection. Not rejection on the basis of friendship, just rejection. There is no 'barzone' where you are rejected because you asked someone out in a bar but they didn't want to hurt you so they said they don't date people they meet in bars. Nor can you be 'PTAzoned' by asking out someone else on the PTA. So therefore, there is no friendzone, it doesn't exist. It's just the 'I don't want to date you zone.'
So Escapist, do you agree, or am I about to be ?forumzoned??
source [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/index/18-Off-topic-Discussion]
I'm not really interested in this whole idea that people who use the term are passive aggressive potential rapists. My problem is with the term itself. Friendzone. The friendzone doesn't exist, no, logically it can't. The term is blatantly false and misleading. It implies that it's impossible for two people, once friends, to move their relationship to a higher level. This is a baffling concept as one would think a friend would be the ideal choice for a romantic partner. Think about it, if you are going to marry a person and spend the rest of your life with them (hopefully) why would you not want it to be someone you are good friends with? What else is there to base a relationship on? Appearance? Is important, but not gonna be relevant 30 years from now. No, ideally -- I'm talking about monogamous relationships here, obviously, I doubt the term would exist if polygamy was the norm -- you want to find a person who you get along with and share common interests: the very definition of a friend.
Now, I don't really think I have to prove this but people do date friends. All of my two relationships were with girls I was friends with for years first. I've seen many people on these very forums state that they are dating/married to someone they were friends with, and it's a common theme in movies for friends to become lovers.
Okay, so people can go from friends to lovers. Let's talk about why people "think" they've been friendzoned. Okay let's make up an exaggerated example, so boy A has become friends with girl B. Girl B has shiny hair and a symmetrical face while boy A is overweight and smells like damp socks. Now girl B likes boy A as they have bonded over their mutual interest in trading card games and collectible novelty key-chains, but she is always sure to remain upwind. Boy A realizes he has developed romantic feelings toward and either confesses his love to girl B or mumbles into a hat. Girl B is taken aback, she never considered the relationship turning romantic and is, honestly, a little repulsed, but she doesn't want to hurt her friends feelings so she tells him that she "doesn't want to take things forward, lest it ruin their friendship." Boy A is then heartbroken and retreats to tell his story to the internet about how he has been 'friendzoned'. Girl B then presumably goes off to marry douche E who charmed her off her feet by pushing her into a puddle and cheats on her with floozy X who is pregnant with the surrogate child of couple, Ron and Samantha, from down the street.
Now, if you were clever, you noticed that girl B didn't actually reject boy A because they were friends, but rather because she wasn't attracted to him and didn't want to hurt his feelings. I think this is a reasonable sentiment and appears to be a logical excuse. Think about it let's say a girl/boy who you were friends with but not attracted to suddenly wanted to date, what do you say? "Well, I, uh... about that... I wouldn't want to ruin... our friendship! Yes, you see, because if we started dating and things went sour we wouldn't be friends anymore. But you are a nice guy/gal. Really!" I've thought about it, and I really think I would have used this excuse if I were in a situation where I had to reject a friend if I weren't aware at the horrible confusion it causes. It really does seem like a good way to spare their feelings.
But, really, when you boil down to it, this is just plain old rejection. Not rejection on the basis of friendship, just rejection. There is no 'barzone' where you are rejected because you asked someone out in a bar but they didn't want to hurt you so they said they don't date people they meet in bars. Nor can you be 'PTAzoned' by asking out someone else on the PTA. So therefore, there is no friendzone, it doesn't exist. It's just the 'I don't want to date you zone.'
So Escapist, do you agree, or am I about to be ?forumzoned??
source [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/index/18-Off-topic-Discussion]
