Well, my first point about true love not existing before the establishment of greater emotional intimacy still stands regardless of whether I or anybody else thinks that a romantic relationship that blooms from friendship is a good or bad thing. That's just a standalone point about true love, since it's been brought up by several posters and I just want to keep it real in that I don't believe it's reasonable to talk about true love in the pre-relationship context because I'd argue it doesn't really exist there.
What exactly is "true love" for the sake of this conversation? Otherwise yes, intimacy definitely contributes to love, no denying that.
Fair enough in terms of the second and third paragraphs.
I agree with you that "no's" should be respected and listened to, but it isn't about me, is it? If there's a girl who's demanding an explanation from me for why we cannot be together, and I refuse to give an explanation, I can't really control how she responds to that. Sure it's her responsibility to get over it and all, but I can't control how someone else acts towards me. And yes, I guess if she's so inclined, she might try to rape me if she's that upset. But I have no control in what she chooses to do. My advice is targeted to the one who would be giving the explanation if there was one, because the only person you can control is yourself.
But that last sentence is the crux of the point. We can only control our own emotions and actions - we shouldn't be held responsible for how other people feel or behave. If she rapes you, it's not your fault and there is nothing you could have done to stop it. You're assuming that by telling you ex why you broke up with them, it will make them feel better and leave you alone, which isn't a guarantee. Either way, your focus should always be on your own health and safety, and that may or may not be in jeopardy based on the person and the situation. So deciding whether or not to tell your ex why you're breaking up with them should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Now depending on her personality and how well we know each other, I'd be willing to give her an explanation if that's what she wants. It's not like I generally have a thing against explaining my reasons for doing things to other people, so there's no real reason stopping me. If it means so much to her to have an explanation and it doesn't really come at any cost to me, then I don't see what's preventing me from giving her what she wants. I'm not responsible to her in any way, but to the extent that I care about her as a human being and to the extent I just want her off my ass, then hell yeah I'm going to move on as quickly as possible because whatever I can achieve that situation is win-win for both of us - I don't want to be harassed, and I don't think it's good for her to hang on to something that just isn't going to work out. Obviously if there's something prohibiting you from taking that course of action, then no you shouldn't unreasonably cause harm to yourself. But to the extent that you can and won't hurt yourself in the process, then you should do what you can to help that separation. The idea is that communicating for the sake of closure is in principle a good thing. That's all I'm saying.
And it's perfectly possible that the other person wouldn't even respect an explanation even if you give them one, in which case the best idea is probably to cut all contact since the other person seems unwilling to communicate constructively - so it's not like I advocate giving an explanation for each and every case of rejection. My point is, more fundamentally, that when you're deciding how to respond to a breakup or rejection, it's better to consider your options on the basis on the pros and cons of each option in addition to whatever you're morally/socially responsible/not responsible for.
The second paragraph is closer to reality. To me, the first paragraph is based off the assumption that telling an ex why you're breaking up with them will be beneficial. Some people are simply unreasonable, and let's keep it real; break-ups are emotionally stressful and draining, and not everyone behaves rationally when they happen. After all, there are tons of stories of
men attacking and even killing women after being rejected. The thing is that there are no magic words to stop someone from doing something irrational or harmful - the people in these stories try every tactic under the sun - because we can't control how other people react to a situation. That's why I am very disturbed by the idea that telling someone why you broke up with them will make them leave you alone. It's very close to victim-blaming.
If you're in a safe situation, you don't mind saying why you're rejecting someone, and you don't think the other person will react badly, then sure, go ahead! My point is that you
can tell someone why you're rejecting them,
but you do not have to.
I don't see it as hypocritical. You don't choose who you love or crush on. And being rejected is painful. I can see how difficult it can be to be nice to someone who is the source of so much pain. Whether or not you have the capability to be nice to someone who's not a potential lover becomes irrelevant when strong feelings are on the line. And while not all unrequited loves are unhealthy, they tend to be unsustainable and can be the cause of very unhealthy relationships (not the romantic kind, but more generally speaking). I can also see how it's difficult to carry on a friendship after a rejection has occurred whether it happened inside or outside the context of a relationship. I'm sure we can all relate to that, whether we've experienced that ourselves or know somebody who's gone through such times.
And getting friendzoned honestly goes both ways (as Electricbluewolf pointed out in the OP). It's not a gendered issue because everybody has the capability of feeling love and pain and everybody can be rejected.
As Universe said, this is specifically in the context of becoming friends with someone/being nice to them,
solely in order to sleep with/date them. In other words, you have
ulterior motives for befriending them or being nice to them. The implication is also that you aren't nice to people unless you are trying to woo them, which is really messed up. I'm not sure what you mean by "Whether or not you have the capability to be nice to someone who's not a potential lover becomes irrelevant," because everyone should act with a basic level of decency to everyone, regardless of whether you're trying to pursue someone or whether you feel vulnerable/your feelings are hurt.
I actually
would argue that this is a gendered issue, because while people of all genders can get "friendzoned," it's mostly heterosexual men who
complain about it. When guys talk about getting friendzoned, there are very noticeable trends, such as the guys self-identifying as "nice guys," having a sense of entitlement, and literally only befriending people solely because they want to pursue the person romantically/sexually. That's an unpleasant combination at best, and it tends to mostly crop up with straight dudes.
Oh, but then he'd complain about how he was so nice to these girls and they've "just seen him as a friend" and "it must be the friend-zone" Not his behaviour or creepiness at all.
I think some other people have pointed it out that being nice or friendly does not constitute a relationship. Being nice and friendly is what you look for in a human being non -stop, not just for a relationship. It's almost like if I buy everything they want and say everything they want to hear they must want to date me.
Never did, I chucked his phone number in the bin when he gave it to me. He got into trouble for trying to chat up a 14 year old (He's 27 btw). Every girl got the sense of creepiness from him, as he turned conversation to dating and what not. I've left there now, don't think that older lady will be saying "he's just trying to be nice" anymore
Ohhhh dear god, how very lovely. Yes, clearly being creepy to people results in them seeing you as a friend. Also, the problem is clearly with every single girl, and not you. :/
Exactly. Having a basic amount of niceness to everyone is
expected human behaviour. People act like they deserve a reward just for being nice. (Usually, this reward is sex or a girlfriend.) It's the idea that women are like machines: if you insert enough gifts and niceness into us, we should spit out sex in return. That's also where the idea that "buying a girl a drink = ensuring she will have sex with you" comes from. *shudders*
I am glad to hear that! I hope he has stopped doing that at this point, but that may be too much to hope for...
What, towards you? That is ridiculously entitled, and who are you to say so? Is the New Testament somehow no longer a fashion.
(And did you mean 'full-stop,' not that it affects the message. Revelations.)
Realistically, though, it's likely to be expected of people who are of the opposite gender, in most cases, outside of the primary social dynamic and expected to be nice to a person due to valuing their sex (otherwise people follow a certain sense of social hierarchy and recognition, so that they aren't expecting anything personally per se, 'in a human being'), while otherwise people will socialise normally. When people ask for irrational affection, they generally mean sexual interest, hence from people of the other gender which might be guys.
First off, correcting people's posts is really uncool, please don't do it. :/
Second, you're missing the point. The issue is that you have people (mostly men) who are nice to other people (mostly women) solely because they're interested in them romantically/sexually. They're only nice to people because they
expect something in return - in this case, that's sex or a relationship. These are also the people who tend to self-identify as "Nice Guys." If someone's main defining quality is that they are "nice," then it's hardly a ringing endorsement.
This is a great deconstruction of what people hear when someone identifies as a "Nice Guy."
Everyone should act with a basic level of decency towards others. I don't think that's a very controversial stance, and it's not really all that difficult. If I meet someone who is only nice to people they like, that sets off alarm bells in my head. Why would I want to be around someone like that, never mind date them?
They are usually expected to win girls' affections by giving them things, being nice, being funny, or whatever, while the dynamic the other way is that girls have attractive bodies, which is in either case a simplification of the actual situation, but such a niche in a dynamic might lead to peculiar tendencies not shared by the other side. If you wished to simplify, you could say that girls were attracted to guys because they act and people were approving, and guys found girls' bodies attractive because someone said they should, but this is not only not inherent to either side or any such people, but highly flexible and in that sense 'nice guys' can get into relationships as much as anybody else, but only specific ones. Likewise girls were expected to be 'nice,' but this was not expected, socially, to be their 'suit,' so to speak, unto the other - who might well be within this society.
This is exactly what I was referring to higher up. Treating women like video games that reward the player with sex/a relationship after you rack up enough points from being nice/giving her things is really fked up. If you want to win a woman's affection, the trick is to
treat her like a human being, who has unique interests, passions, needs, and goals just like you do. The idea that women are the choosers who rewards the man who gives her the best stuff with the gift of her body is antiquated and wrong. Also, most of what I could actually parse from this is wrong from a historical, psychological and sexuality standpoint.
A person who was 'friendzoned' was unlikely to bring up relationships immediately, though, just to have extended conversations about nothing. This would pass for 'being sociable,' which girls are also pressured to be, and hence would be unlikely to turn up their noses at automatically. They would be likely to only say or listen to highly accessible things, however.
I would agree with most of this, though I don't understand the last sentence.
I've had a friendzone experience with one of my online friends. She sees me as a sex friend, because although she's interested in finding a serious relationship herself, she enjoys sleeping with other men. Since she and I share common dirty minds, I thought the two of us could be together after being friends for a few years, but she rejected my offer and still wanted to stay friends, although she's still interested in sleeping with me. Of course, she also encouraged me to continue looking for a girlfriend, but I fear I'll never find a girl like her anywhere else.
Unless she said "I only see you as a friend," I'm not sure this qualifies as "friendzoning."
This isn't the advice thread, but dude, if someone rejects you, the best thing to do is move on. It sounds like you have a bad case of
oneitis and have convinced yourself there is nobody else in this whole wide world. Please read the link, because this happens to a lot of people.
~Psychic
