I just ran into the POF profile of one of my crazier ex-girlfriends. Someone is clearly having a terrible time in the dating world since I dumped them.
Yadda yadda yadda no such thing as friend zone yadda yadda yadda she just doesn't want that kind of relationship with you yadda yadda yadda you're a great person just haven't found the right person yet yadda yadda yadda.
Look, we've said it all before. I know it feels rough, but there's people out there that will mesh with you on this level. You're looking for the most intimate form of human interaction, it takes time to find people like that. Keep looking, but don't forget to play some video games in the mean time. ~_^
I call bullshit on those people who say there's no such thing as the friend zone. The friend zone totally exists... However, the problem isn't admitting that it exists; it's people who think being "friend zoned" is inherently a bad thing. Yes, there are people who only seek a platonic friendship relationship with you and don't want anything more intimate. That's all the "friend zone" is. There's nothing wrong with that. Friends are cool to have, period. Enjoy the benefits of a normal friendship. If you think it's bad that someone only wants to be a friend with you, well, then you are the asshole, not the person who wants to be your friend. I'm not talking about being bummed either, because, hey, it's natural to be bummed by being rejected by someone you wish to be more intimate with. It's only fixating on the bummer and considering the person who "friend zoned" you as bad that's the problem. Not that I'm saying that you're an asshole, Dromaro, just giving an example here of the most common people who complain about being "friend zoned."
Speaking as someone who was friend zoned quite a bit, but mostly got over it and enjoyed good friendships with those people with no hard feelings (I gotta be honest, I wasn't always 100% understanding with those who friend zoned me, and I'm ashamed of some of my behavior... but I usually patched things up after the initial stinging), it takes patience. A lot of patience. I won't even get into how long it took me, but, eventually, I found someone who did want something more than just friendship. Just relax, don't take it personally, be yourself, and don't get too worked up over it. It'll happen eventually.
Well if we're using that definition, I've been friendzoned and have friendzoned many people. :P To be honest, given the subtlety of flirting, I've probably friendzoned lots of girls without realizing it.
Well if we're using that definition, I've been friendzoned and have friendzoned many people. :P To be honest, given the subtlety of flirting, I've probably friendzoned lots of girls without realizing it.
I think I've written this to one of my more unlucky in the realms of romantic relationships. But friendships based initially on romantic feelings can be some of your best and most fulfilling friendships. First being friends with the person will get you introduced to their social circles, which are probably filled with other people who have similar attributes to the one you like. Either way having a friend who is similar to what you like means you have a very important person vouching for you to people you meet. Also there is always a chance that things come together in some way later and you do work out (but counting on that can damage the friendship). Eitherway, friendship rules.
//says the married guy who hasn't been single in over 8 years.....
See, I agree with that article 100%. In fact, the general idea of what I said and the content of that article also line up completely, even down to the part about being bummed that someone you're attracted to only wants to be your friend. The only real difference is the definition we use of "friend zone." My definition is pretty much "if someone you're attracted to isn't attracted to you but wants to remain friends, you're 'friend zoned'," which, as others in this thread have pointed out, is a pretty loose definition of the term. The article and the assholes I mentioned use a definition that says, "if I'm friendly with you and want to have sex with you, but you don't want to have sex with me, I've been 'friend zoned' and you're a bad person." The difference is that my definition leaves out the "you're a bad person for just wanting to be my friend" part.
I guess my thing is that I do understand the whole feeling hurt about being romantically rejected by someone who just wants to remain friends because that's happened to me quite a few times. Heck, I'm no saint, and until I could get over the initial hurt, I certainly was occasionally angry with the person who "friend zoned" (my definition) me, but not for too long and only until I did get over the hurt. I don't understand, nor do I agree with, the notion that just being friends entitles you to romance and/or sex and if you're then denied, the denier is evil long beyond any time it may take to reasonably get over the hurt.
See, I agree with that article 100%. In fact, the general idea of what I said and the content of that article also line up completely, even down to the part about being bummed that someone you're attracted to only wants to be your friend. The only real difference is the definition we use of "friend zone." My definition is pretty much "if someone you're attracted to isn't attracted to you but wants to remain friends, you're 'friend zoned'," which, as others in this thread have pointed out, is a pretty loose definition of the term. The article and the assholes I mentioned use a definition that says, "if I'm friendly with you and want to have sex with you, but you don't want to have sex with me, I've been 'friend zoned' and you're a bad person." The difference is that my definition leaves out the "you're a bad person for just wanting to be my friend" part.
I guess my thing is that I do understand the whole feeling hurt about being romantically rejected by someone who just wants to remain friends because that's happened to me quite a few times. Heck, I'm no saint, and until I could get over the initial hurt, I certainly was occasionally angry with the person who "friend zoned" (my definition) me, but not for too long and only until I did get over the hurt. I don't understand, nor do I agree with, the notion that just being friends entitles you to romance and/or sex and if you're then denied, the denier is evil long beyond any time it may take to reasonably get over the hurt.
And herein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a personal definition. You can't just decide on what a word or phrase means and suddenly have that apply to everyone else. It seems like pointless semantics, but it's not.
Let's say that I decide that the word "dog" means "a big metal tube full of fuel that goes into space." If I start saying I put a satellite in a dog and launched it into space, people will be all like WTF.
I would like nothing more than to use terms like grand dragon or grand wizard. But guess what? Those don't mean the awesome things they sound like. No matter what I think, the KKK ruined those titles. Nothing can be done about it.
I may not be referring to a guy in white robes who burns crosses and lynches people when I say "grand wizard" because my personal definition is different, but that doesn't matter. That's what the phrase means. Tough shit. Deal with it.
You may not mean "girl who is a bad person who wouldn't have sex with me" when you say the term "friend zone", but that's what it means. Tough shit. Deal with it. If that's not what you mean, don't use that phrase.
You may not mean "girl who is a bad person who wouldn't have sex with me" when you say the term "friend zone", but that's what it means. Tough shit. Deal with it. If that's not what you mean, don't use that phrase.
Well, in my case, it's more along the lines where by "dog" I meant "any creature of the genus Canis, which includes domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes" (AKA pretty much all "dog-like creatures") whereas the common definition is specifically the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The discrepancy arose from my personal experience where I lumped all "dog-like creatures" together as opposed to the common definition, meaning specifically domestic dogs. It was compounded by the fact that Dromaro didn't seem like the asshole/misogynist type that usually use the common definition of "friend zone." Going forward, yeah, I'll be more cautious when using the term "friend zone" to refer specifically to the "assholish/misogynistic friend zone" as opposed to the more generic "just want to be friends with you" case.
I didn't mean to use the phrase in a negative way. I'm happy we are going to be friends. She's a super rad lady that I would like to hang out with, uglies bumping or not. I was more lamenting that I don't get dates often so I always *hope* it will go really well so I don't have to deal with the insufferable gap until the next one.
I was more lamenting that I don't get dates often so I always *hope* it will go really well so I don't have to deal with the insufferable gap until the next one.
Dude, I feel ya. *raises beer* Better luck next time.
I didn't mean to use the phrase in a negative way. I'm happy we are going to be friends. She's a super rad lady that I would like to hang out with, uglies bumping or not.
I figured as much, and I know where you're coming from.
I was more lamenting that I don't get dates often so I always *hope* it will go really well so I don't have to deal with the insufferable gap until the next one.
Again, I feel your pain... Anyway, just relax, but keep your eyes open. It'll happen eventually, but don't get all worked up about it.
I'm actually trying to avoid getting out of the "friend zone" (or whatever you want to call it) with one of my friends. She got out an her engagement a little while back and is now interested in me (not assumed, she stated it plainly). Love her to death, but I know it would never work out long term because the differences we can ignore as friends would be serious points of contention in a more serious relationship. Don't get me wrong: there is definitely an attraction between us, and we are very comfortable with each other just because of how long we've been friends and how often we hang out, but it just WOULD NOT work out.
Thankfully, she's just started dating a guy who is much like me, but aligned with her in the points where she and I are not. *crosses fingers*
Draw a venn diagram with four overlapping circles. People you want to be friends with. People that want to be your friend. People you want to have (pick sex, dating, or whatever) with, and then people who want to do that with you. How are you guys defining the friend zone on this "map."
It seems like one group defines it as people they don't want to be friends with, but the other person wants to be their friend, and they want to have * with, but that person doesn't want that with them. That's not even like a zone. They don't have anything in common with each other. They just pretend at friending to get what they want.
The other group (mostly people here I guess) wants to define friend zone as overlapping both friend circles and only one of the * circles. Which... I dunno, seems perfectly reasonable and not objectionable at all. Someone might be mildly disappointed at worst.
One of many reasons I stay the hell out of this topic (and anything MRA related).
I still can't imagine not being friends with someone first before deciding that you want to have sex with them or whatever.
The order is: Become Friends > Become Close Friends > Kissing > Sex, etc...
Not every combination of people moves all the way to the right.
Most people who complain about being "friend zoned" were only interested in the right side of this tree. It's all or nothing: if they can't have the right side, they don't even want the left side. These people are also known as "horrible people."
There is nothing wrong with starting at attraction, then kissing, then sexy fun times, and then discovering you aren't really suited as friends. No problem at all. You might not have a close friend at the end of it all, but at least you had consensual bedroom fun along the way.
Sure, that's viable. I do not begrudge anyone for wanting what they want. There are people that don't want that. The problem subject here seems to purely be people that want one thing and will basically swindle to get that thing rather than approaching it honestly.
I'm with Rym in how my relationships progress. Admitted we may have progressed quickly from friends to kissing at the time, but we're super close now so everything is fine. Maybe that's why this is long term rather than a couple month thing. I respect Luke's position, but not for me.
Most people who complain about being "friend zoned" were only interested in the right side of this tree. It's all or nothing: if they can't have the right side, they don't even want the left side. These people are also known as "horrible people."
Why is the term "friend zone" so popular when the term "unrequited love" already exists and is more accurate?
I suspect it's because it shifts the locus of responsibility. "Unrequited love" focuses on the person who has the crush. The feelings being discussed are the crushing person's, thus the responsibility in on them to get over their crush and move on. "Friend zone", on the other hand, focuses on the crush object's choices. The phrase erases the agency of the crushing person. All blame for their pain is put on the crush object. "Unrequited love" is something that can happen to both sexes, but "friend zone" is a sexist concept that implies that women are solely responsible for men's happiness, and not men themselves.
I'm with Rym in how my relationships progress. Admitted we may have progressed quickly from friends to kissing at the time, but we're super close now so everything is fine. Maybe that's why this is long term rather than a couple month thing. I respect Luke's position, but not for me.
Most people who complain about being "friend zoned" were only interested in the right side of this tree. It's all or nothing: if they can't have the right side, they don't even want the left side. These people are also known as "horrible people."
Did you mean to post this in the Rym and Scott (and George) are gay thread?
Comments
Look, we've said it all before. I know it feels rough, but there's people out there that will mesh with you on this level. You're looking for the most intimate form of human interaction, it takes time to find people like that. Keep looking, but don't forget to play some video games in the mean time. ~_^
Speaking as someone who was friend zoned quite a bit, but mostly got over it and enjoyed good friendships with those people with no hard feelings (I gotta be honest, I wasn't always 100% understanding with those who friend zoned me, and I'm ashamed of some of my behavior... but I usually patched things up after the initial stinging), it takes patience. A lot of patience. I won't even get into how long it took me, but, eventually, I found someone who did want something more than just friendship. Just relax, don't take it personally, be yourself, and don't get too worked up over it. It'll happen eventually.
http://feministsatlarge.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/the-friendzone-is-a-sexist-myth/
//says the married guy who hasn't been single in over 8 years.....
That's the worst possible zone.
I guess my thing is that I do understand the whole feeling hurt about being romantically rejected by someone who just wants to remain friends because that's happened to me quite a few times. Heck, I'm no saint, and until I could get over the initial hurt, I certainly was occasionally angry with the person who "friend zoned" (my definition) me, but not for too long and only until I did get over the hurt. I don't understand, nor do I agree with, the notion that just being friends entitles you to romance and/or sex and if you're then denied, the denier is evil long beyond any time it may take to reasonably get over the hurt.
Let's say that I decide that the word "dog" means "a big metal tube full of fuel that goes into space." If I start saying I put a satellite in a dog and launched it into space, people will be all like WTF.
I would like nothing more than to use terms like grand dragon or grand wizard. But guess what? Those don't mean the awesome things they sound like. No matter what I think, the KKK ruined those titles. Nothing can be done about it.
I may not be referring to a guy in white robes who burns crosses and lynches people when I say "grand wizard" because my personal definition is different, but that doesn't matter. That's what the phrase means. Tough shit. Deal with it.
You may not mean "girl who is a bad person who wouldn't have sex with me" when you say the term "friend zone", but that's what it means. Tough shit. Deal with it. If that's not what you mean, don't use that phrase.
Thankfully, she's just started dating a guy who is much like me, but aligned with her in the points where she and I are not. *crosses fingers*
It seems like one group defines it as people they don't want to be friends with, but the other person wants to be their friend, and they want to have * with, but that person doesn't want that with them. That's not even like a zone. They don't have anything in common with each other. They just pretend at friending to get what they want.
The other group (mostly people here I guess) wants to define friend zone as overlapping both friend circles and only one of the * circles. Which... I dunno, seems perfectly reasonable and not objectionable at all. Someone might be mildly disappointed at worst.
One of many reasons I stay the hell out of this topic (and anything MRA related).
The order is:
Become Friends > Become Close Friends > Kissing > Sex, etc...
Not every combination of people moves all the way to the right.
Most people who complain about being "friend zoned" were only interested in the right side of this tree. It's all or nothing: if they can't have the right side, they don't even want the left side. These people are also known as "horrible people."
Still though...
You're the responsible for your own emotions. You don't get to say how someone else should feels.
You maybe able to influence, but you can't dictate.