The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   I'm just trying to get you out the friendzone (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362580)

Electricbluewolf February 4th, 2016 12:30 PM

I'm just trying to get you out the friendzone
 
So one of the hot debates about modern relationships is the so called "Friendzone".

Stereotypicaly, it appears to be young men, who become friends with women, and act friendly, with the intention of either sleeping with them or wanting a relationship.

Has anyone had an experience with the "Friendzone"? Does it exist or is it something made up? Can women and men strictly be "just" friends?


____

In my personal experience, the whole "I like you as a friend thing" can work both ways. I have first met guys and intentionally thought "I would date them" then as I've got to know them thought "Our friendship would be over if we dated, it won't work". I've also had the same done to me.

I don't think in the whole friendship that at least one party hasn't thought "What if we dated" and developed infatuation. Whether it lasts a week/months, our brains are programmed to find a deeper bond

Pebbles February 4th, 2016 12:53 PM

of course boys and girls can be friends without both wanting to be in a relationship
but i also think MOST of the time they become friends because one of them likes the other
that is how it goes a lot, right

i guess it just depends on the people and their personality
wether you are making new friends because you want sex or because you genuinely find the person interesting and got things in common with them and seriously just want to make friends...

Dusty February 4th, 2016 1:06 PM

I don't just think that the friendzone is something that guys are put it because I've done it with a few girls as well. I've been in enough relationships to know when it isn't going to work out, at least not at that point. Whenever I do date people, its when I've known them for at least a couple years. A lot of that is because I can't truly know other people and whether I could actually have a romantic relationship with them unless I've spent a long time with them and understand them.

As for whether people can actually be "just friends", I think that they absolutely can. If someone is so desperate to get out of the friendzone, then you really do need to look at their motives. Why would you be so eager to get into a relationship with someone? If you don't really know the other person or have only known them for a short time, than why would you try to get into a relationship quickly that you don't even know if it will go well?

I may be the minority, but I think that people go way too quickly when it comes to relationships, and if someone is so obsessed with avoiding or getting out of the friendzone, then they are trying to go too quickly. I posted a little while ago in another thread about the difference between love and infatuation, and I think that definitely applies here. If you are so infatuated with another person that you cant stand being in the friendzone, then is it really love? If you really loved the other person, wouldn't you be okay waiting and getting to know them better as a person and trying to start a relationship at a later point?

And if a guy or girl has been in the "friendzone" for a long time and you still care about them romantically, as well as a friend, then be honest. Give yourself time to think about a relationship rationally as well as emotionally.


Welp, theres my opinion.

LordGrizz February 4th, 2016 4:26 PM

The friend zone is real in each individuals mind. Many times it feels weird to people to try and get into a relationship without knowing someone. At this point one tries to get close to the their potential partner by being their friend. Unfortunately this is usually the time one gets "friend zoned". There are of course certain criteria that makes one more likely of winding up their but a lot of that is opinion and speculation. The friend zone is basically just an easy way of explaining to our brain why it won't happen.

illumine February 4th, 2016 7:47 PM

Well, obviously if a guy were trying to enter into a girl's friendship circles, then this would compromise their goal of standing out, if they ever had such. The girl wouldn't be getting any signals that this person was attractive, and in brief in the social sphere sought for some reason there wouldn't be much bringing them together in that way, etc. Obviously saying that they should 'get to know them' - as friends - would merely encourage such a thing, and presumably exclusive relationships are to be entered into in a spirit of attraction, desire, love, or whatever, rather than pragmatism. This kind of concept came about in the context of a society which basically envisioned all such exclusive relationships as in continuity with 'friendship' and ordinary socialising, which is to say befriending people not because you like them but because someone claims that you should have friends and they're just to be used to satisfy the gap - which is still 'using' people, by the way, and as such most people didn't consider 'friendship' a category devoid of this -, rather than as something diametrically opposed. As such, it was an attempt to counter-act the prevailing advice, which was just to interact with social circles and their society generally, by observing that in lieu of entirely dishonest proceedings such exclusivity and individual relationships generally are fostered by remaining apart.

Incidentally, this is a fairly interesting place in which to post this. The anime certainly believes in the 'power' of the 'friendzone' - namely to lead to something more - while the games are more ambiguous, although clearly Mewtwo believes that in such contexts, "You are not this human's servant? You are his friend? You are as pathetic as the rest," as, "Humans and Pokémon can never be friends," and in matters of the heart is always prepared with the canard, "Why do you flee from me? Are you afraid to find out which of us is greater?"

Kanzler February 4th, 2016 8:23 PM

Cuz you look even better than the photos~

I think the friendzone is real to the extent that we mentally categorize people into more or less static spaces. We don't think of our friends as that group of people from which relationships are spontaneously produced, like bubbles in a pot of boiling water.

Psychic February 4th, 2016 8:42 PM

The trope of men being "friendzoned" by women is ridiculous. I as a woman have been rejected by guys and seen as "just a friend," and while rejection does suck, to pretend that this is some kind of epidemic, one that only affects straight guys, is ridiculous.

There are plenty of reasons someone wouldn't want to date you, and nobody owes you a reason for not wanting to date you. Sometimes "I consider you a friend" is just meant to soften the blow, because...well, most people actually value their friendships. To be offended over being told you're "just a friend" implies that you don't actually value that friendship. Someone who complains about "always being friendzoned" doesn't see the positives of just being friends with women, and that is both sad and kinda gross.

If we're going to talk about the "freindzone," the other side of the coin is women who get "girlfriendzoned" by straight men. It is really frustrating to be seen only as a potential girlfriend by someone you like and trust, especially when you're clearly not interested in romantic relationship for whatever reason. It's also frustrating when someone acts like they want to be your friend, but are only interested in you romantically. Just be honest about your intentions, people!

To ask if women and men can be just friends is as ridiculous as asking if lesbians can be friends. :/ Crushes happen, they're normal, and as with most crushes, they eventually fade. A solid friendship will withstand a bit of awkwardness.

~Psychic

Kanzler February 4th, 2016 9:23 PM

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about true love outside of a relationship. The early feelings of attachment and infatuation are really confusing, and let's be real, it's not true love at the beginning even if the relationship that ends up occurring is really good.

Wanting to be the friend of a potential significant other is honestly a good strategy, if you will. I mean, how do you expect a relationship to last if you can't keep up a friendly level of interaction?

And to further expand on the reality of the friendzone: I think it is substantiated by personality flaws or dislikes or incompatibilities that reveal themselves over the course of the friendship. The same phenomenon occurs in a relationship as well, which is why most relationships don't work out. The only difference is that those incompatibilities don't lead up to a breakup when you're in the friendzone, but in either case, one party is eliminating the other party as a potential romantic target over the course of having experienced them.

Electricbluewolf February 5th, 2016 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pebbles (Post 9104305)
of course boys and girls can be friends without both wanting to be in a relationship
but i also think MOST of the time they become friends because one of them likes the other
that is how it goes a lot, right

I think it's up for debate because for some reason a lot of people think boys and girls can be just friends, with no romantic attachment. Even if you explain to someone that you've been friends for years etc people seem to think it's normal to fall into a relationship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by STARDU5T (Post 9104314)
I may be the minority, but I think that people go way too quickly when it comes to relationships, and if someone is so obsessed with avoiding or getting out of the friendzone, then they are trying to go too quickly. I posted a little while ago in another thread about the difference between love and infatuation, and I think that definitely applies here. If you are so infatuated with another person that you cant stand being in the friendzone, then is it really love? If you really loved the other person, wouldn't you be okay waiting and getting to know them better as a person and trying to start a relationship at a later point?

I agree; it seems nowadays if you aren't in a relationship there's something wrong with you; I feel I need to find myself first before committing to someone else-one of my friends is never without a "boyfriend", whenever she's broken up she has another one within 24 hours. Seems kind of mentally and emotionally draining

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordGrizz (Post 9104509)
The friend zone is real in each individuals mind. Many times it feels weird to people to try and get into a relationship without knowing someone. At this point one tries to get close to the their potential partner by being their friend. Unfortunately this is usually the time one gets "friend zoned". There are of course certain criteria that makes one more likely of winding up their but a lot of that is opinion and speculation. The friend zone is basically just an easy way of explaining to our brain why it won't happen.

Agreed, when we suffer rejection we always look for why; most of the time we focus on what the other person must have done/thought, not what we think

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9104866)
The trope of men being "friendzoned" by women is ridiculous. I as a woman have been rejected by guys and seen as "just a friend," and while rejection does suck, to pretend that this is some kind of epidemic, one that only affects straight guys, is ridiculous.

There are plenty of reasons someone wouldn't want to date you, and nobody owes you a reason for not wanting to date you. Sometimes "I consider you a friend" is just meant to soften the blow, because...well, most people actually value their friendships. To be offended over being told you're "just a friend" implies that you don't actually value that friendship. Someone who complains about "always being friendzoned" doesn't see the positives of just being friends with women, and that is both sad and kinda gross.

If we're going to talk about the "freindzone," the other side of the coin is women who get "girlfriendzoned" by straight men. It is really frustrating to be seen only as a potential girlfriend by someone you like and trust, especially when you're clearly not interested in romantic relationship for whatever reason. It's also frustrating when someone acts like they want to be your friend, but are only interested in you romantically. Just be honest about your intentions, people!

To ask if women and men can be just friends is as ridiculous as asking if lesbians can be friends. :/ Crushes happen, they're normal, and as with most crushes, they eventually fade. A solid friendship will withstand a bit of awkwardness.

~Psychic

Agreed, I have lost many good friendships as I've rejected "advances", makes me kind of upset that friendship meant nothing. Sometimes I find friendship more special as you have more memories or emotion to that person than you would in a relationship.

For example in reference to it, when I work in retail there was this guy who loved to give his number out and try to get in a relationship with every girl. When I told one of the older women this, she said I should give him a chance because he's nice. It's strange to only date someone just because of that but she found it normal, and even when he was sending me 30+ messages a day, she said it was just being friendly.

As mentioned above it seems when you are friends with the opposite gender a lot of questioned get raised, and it's almost like "why are you not"


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9104911)
I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about true love outside of a relationship. The early feelings of attachment and infatuation are really confusing, and let's be real, it's not true love at the beginning even if the relationship that ends up occurring is really good.

Wanting to be the friend of a potential significant other is honestly a good strategy, if you will. I mean, how do you expect a relationship to last if you can't keep up a friendly level of interaction?

And to further expand on the reality of the friendzone: I think it is substantiated by personality flaws or dislikes or incompatibilities that reveal themselves over the course of the friendship. The same phenomenon occurs in a relationship as well, which is why most relationships don't work out. The only difference is that those incompatibilities don't lead up to a breakup when you're in the friendzone, but in either case, one party is eliminating the other party as a potential romantic target over the course of having experienced them.

Agreed, when I meet someone I don't know if I'll date them or not; what happens if I did from the start and immediately found out they loved to step on puppies? I'd be horrified! I find more satisfaction getting to know someone, their quirks and fears before committing as you know what would make them happy

illumine February 5th, 2016 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricbluewolf (Post 9105631)
Agreed, when I meet someone I don't know if I'll date them or not; what happens if I did from the start and immediately found out they loved to step on puppies? I'd be horrified! I find more satisfaction getting to know someone, their quirks and fears before committing as you know what would make them happy

While what makes them happy seems besides the point of any relationship, obviously people do talk and act, and from this you would perhaps make deductions about what they are, which would then be why you would be in a relationship sparked by love. Rather than because of their actions, which would lead to polyamory at best, and incoherent frivolity on your own part as a reflexive consequence.

If people are in relationships for the sake of being in relationships, rather than being in love with the person, then that is called social pressure. Admittedly there is a lot of such pressure on females, who are expected generally to be in such, but anyway.

Quote:

and nobody owes you a reason for not wanting to date you
Other than your post reading like a diatribe against some unspecified, here-absent person who wants to be friends with females, presumably if you mean 'you as opposed to someone else,' then yes, that act of discrimination or division would generally require reasons to justify it.

Quote:

If we're going to talk about the "freindzone," the other side of the coin is women who get "girlfriendzoned" by straight men.
And where are all of these females who think of romantic relationships as a milder relation than friendship? In all likelihood they do not. So a person thinks too much of them and doesn't wish to engage in a lower form of relationship which contradicts this or is 'dishonest,' this isn't likely to lead to a similar complaint to that of people who are 'friendzoned.'

Incidentally it seems strange that people immediately assume when people discuss these things in the context of gender that this necessarily means that they're positing something inherent to the female gender by this, when obviously in terms of social dynamics and characteristics females are very different from males. This might even affect social conduct of some people which involves them, this is not even going too far.

Kanzler February 5th, 2016 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9105790)
Other than your post reading like a diatribe against some unspecified, here-absent person who wants to be friends with females, presumably if you mean 'you as opposed to someone else,' then yes, that act of discrimination or division would generally require reasons to justify it.

I agree. There's always a reason for not wanting to date someone, just as there's always a reason for everything that happens in this world. Most often it's a lack of interest or a lack of compatibility. It's generally appropriate to communicate this lack of interest or compatibility because it helps create closure - if you really don't want a relationship with person, then it seems in your best interest to put them in a place of mind where they are less likely to pursue that relationship, not even considering whatever compassion you might have for the other person as a friend, colleague, or human being. In my personal experience, awkward unrequited loves exist longer then they have to be if that lack of interest is not firmly communicated. So while not owing explanations to someone is ostensibly true, it's not the most practical advice that I would give someone.

Melody February 5th, 2016 2:51 PM

The fact is that being friendzoned hurts. Overcoming that is hard to do. Exiting the friendzone usually also difficult.

Friendzoning someone can also be difficult. It is painful. Especially if you do care about that person.

What you do about it is up to you. Friendships don't have to end when romance fails. They simply don't. They also don't have to continue when romance does fail. It's a decision between two people. Their decision because it's their emotional well being at stake.

Psychic February 5th, 2016 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9104911)
I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about true love outside of a relationship. The early feelings of attachment and infatuation are really confusing, and let's be real, it's not true love at the beginning even if the relationship that ends up occurring is really good.

Wanting to be the friend of a potential significant other is honestly a good strategy, if you will. I mean, how do you expect a relationship to last if you can't keep up a friendly level of interaction?

And to further expand on the reality of the friendzone: I think it is substantiated by personality flaws or dislikes or incompatibilities that reveal themselves over the course of the friendship. The same phenomenon occurs in a relationship as well, which is why most relationships don't work out. The only difference is that those incompatibilities don't lead up to a breakup when you're in the friendzone, but in either case, one party is eliminating the other party as a potential romantic target over the course of having experienced them.

I don't think anyone here is saying that having a romantic relationship that blooms from a friendship is a bad thing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. Heck, my current partner was my best friend for a good few years! But the idea that you need to be friends with someone before you date them is silly. Match-making has existed for ages, from hiring a professional to having friends arrange blind dates to modern internet dating sites, and those relationships can be just as good as ones that start from friendships. Unless there is hard data proving that one method leads to better relationships, I wouldn't try ranking one against the other.

As for your last paragraph, what exactly about that differentiates "friendzoning" from regular rejection? People in this thread seem to be equating the two a lot, and while "friendzoning" is a type of rejection, not every rectangle is a square.

I'm admittedly confused by a lot of this post and am not sure what you were trying to say, so I'll hold off on responding further.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricbluewolf (Post 9105631)
I agree; it seems nowadays if you aren't in a relationship there's something wrong with you; I feel I need to find myself first before committing to someone else-one of my friends is never without a "boyfriend", whenever she's broken up she has another one within 24 hours. Seems kind of mentally and emotionally draining

Just wanted to throw out there that you are not alone, and this is not a new phenomenon. My grandma's sisters and friends teased her about being an "old spinster" because she wasn't married until she was the ripe old age of 21. D:

I am a strong proponent of loving yourself and making sure you're ready before entering into a relationship. You should be mature enough to be comfortable with being single before getting ahead of yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricbluewolf (Post 9105631)
Agreed, I have lost many good friendships as I've rejected "advances", makes me kind of upset that friendship meant nothing. Sometimes I find friendship more special as you have more memories or emotion to that person than you would in a relationship.

For example in reference to it, when I work in retail there was this guy who loved to give his number out and try to get in a relationship with every girl. When I told one of the older women this, she said I should give him a chance because he's nice. It's strange to only date someone just because of that but she found it normal, and even when he was sending me 30+ messages a day, she said it was just being friendly.

As mentioned above it seems when you are friends with the opposite gender a lot of questioned get raised, and it's almost like "why are you not"

That someone would completely stop being your friend just because you don't want to date them is so crappy. :/ Yes, everyone feels a bit hurt and awkward after a rejection, but to go so far as ending a friendship over it calls into question whether they were really a friend at all.

As for your second paragraph, while that's not really on the subject of "friendzoning" imo, that is still really creepy and not okay, both on the part of that guy and your coworker. I completely agree that dating someone only "because they seem nice" is so icky. "Being nice" is something I expect of all people - if your primary positive quality is "being nice" then it's hardly a ringing endorsement. Also, this is absolutely a social pressure that's mostly aimed at women. Guy don't really get told "you don't seem interested in that girl, but she seems nice, give her a chance!" as regularly as women. Also no, sending someone 30+ texts is not "being friendly." It sounds like your coworker has really bad judgement, please don't take her advice. :/


Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9105790)
Other than your post reading like a diatribe against some unspecified, here-absent person who wants to be friends with females, presumably if you mean 'you as opposed to someone else,' then yes, that act of discrimination or division would generally require reasons to justify it.

I have no idea what you're trying to imply with the first part of this sentence. Everyone here is speaking in generalities (which tends to happen whenever you get into a conversation about "friendzoning"). Not really sure what you're getting at.

No, you are not "required" to give reasons for not wanting to date someone, or not wanting to be their friend, or not wanting to have sex with them. Heck, you don't even have to tell someone why you're breaking up with them, even though it would be nice if you did. Nobody has to justify their choices to other people: if someone says "no, not interested" then it's not up for debate or discussion. Too often, providing someone with reasons just makes them try to convince you your reasons aren't good enough, or try to logic their way out of it. This is especially dangerous with abusers - obviously you can't say "it's because you verbally abuse me," but they will also use every reason you use against you, so it's safer not to give them any ammunition. There are situations where "sorry, but no" is simply the best answer, plus people who won't listen to "no" are not people who you should give answers to anyway.

For the record:
  • I have been in a situation where someone broke up with me and gave me all of the reasons for their choice. I'm not sure why they did it, but it was more hurtful than anything else.
  • I've also been in situations where I had to reject someone, and they became belligerent over it and demanded an explanation. Had I given them answers it would have only upset them more, and I didn't want to escalate the situation.
  • I have also been in situations where I kept having to reject someone over and over, and whenever I'd say why they would belittle my reasons and act like they weren't good enough. The fact that they couldn't take "no" for an answer is reason enough to reject them.
Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9105790)
And where are all of these females who think of romantic relationships as a milder relation than friendship? In all likelihood they do not. So a person thinks too much of them and doesn't wish to engage in a lower form of relationship which contradicts this or is 'dishonest,' this isn't likely to lead to a similar complaint to that of people who are 'friendzoned.'

Nobody in this thread has said anything about friendships being on some kind of lower tier than romantic relationships. In fact, my point was specifically that some men get insulted when women consider them to be friends, as if a woman considering a man to be her friend is somehow degrading him.

I'm not sure you understood my point about dishonesty. I said it is dishonest to try and become someone's friend if you were never actually interested in being friends with them. That's like becoming friends with a rich person because you're hoping they'll give you free stuff, then acting hurt when they don't. You can't complain about being "friendzoned" if you literally acted like you just wanted to be friends the whole time. If you act like a friend, people will treat you as a friend. I'm all for relationships blossoming out of friendships, but if you're into someone, just be upfront.

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9105790)
Incidentally it seems strange that people immediately assume when people discuss these things in the context of gender that this necessarily means that they're positing something inherent to the female gender by this, when obviously in terms of social dynamics and characteristics females are very different from males. This might even affect social conduct of some people which involves them, this is not even going too far.

Actually, a lot of guys who complain about the "friendzone" make huge, sweeping assumptions about how "girls never want Nice Guys" and "girls only like jerks." Nobody is denying that men and women are different and are socialized differently. That doesn't excuse anyone's behaviour, and it still doesn't change anything that's been said here, imo. I'm not sure what your point was, but you're building a lot of straw men.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9105815)
I agree. There's always a reason for not wanting to date someone, just as there's always a reason for everything that happens in this world. Most often it's a lack of interest or a lack of compatibility. It's generally appropriate to communicate this lack of interest or compatibility because it helps create closure - if you really don't want a relationship with person, then it seems in your best interest to put them in a place of mind where they are less likely to pursue that relationship, not even considering whatever compassion you might have for the other person as a friend, colleague, or human being. In my personal experience, awkward unrequited loves exist longer then they have to be if that lack of interest is not firmly communicated. So while not owing explanations to someone is ostensibly true, it's not the most practical advice that I would give someone.

"No" is a full sentence. If someone tells you "no," then you need to listen. It is an answer by itself, and does not require any further explanation or reasoning. It is not my responsibility to "put someone in a frame of mind" to stop pursuing me, and that line of thinking verges on rape apology. "You should have said why you didn't want to have sex with him when you said no - maybe if you had, he wouldn't have kept pursuing you!" Someone who gets rejected has to acknowledge the rejection and move past it on their own terms - nobody is responsible for helping them.

Would it be nice to get an explanation when you get rejected? Oftentimes, hell yes! There's no denying that. But 1) that doesn't mean it will help, and 2) it still doesn't mean you're entitled to hearing the reasons. When my first boyfriend dumped me, he thought he was "helping" me by giving me a long laundry list of reasons why he had done it. It didn't give me closure; it just made me upset.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Melody (Post 9105825)
The fact is that being friendzoned hurts. Overcoming that is hard to do. Exiting the friendzone usually also difficult.

Friendzoning someone can also be difficult. It is painful. Especially if you do care about that person.

What you do about it is up to you. Friendships don't have to end when romance fails. They simply don't. They also don't have to continue when romance does fail. It's a decision between two people. Their decision because it's their emotional well being at stake.

I'd say the first two paragraphs of your post apply to rejection in general, really, and isn't unique to the idea of friendzoning. I do agree with this sentiment overall, though I wouldn't necessarily agree that maintaining a friendship is a decision between two people. It takes two to tango, that's true, but it only takes one to say no.

~Psychic

Melody February 5th, 2016 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9106311)
I'd say the first two paragraphs of your post apply to rejection in general, really, and isn't unique to the idea of friendzoning. I do agree with this sentiment overall, though I wouldn't necessarily agree that maintaining a friendship is a decision between two people. It takes two to tango, that's true, but it only takes one to say no.

~Psychic

That's why it's a decision Between two people. The friendship outcome has to be agreed upon; and normally the one doing the friendzoning wants you to be a friend not a lover. The receiver can still say no, and refuse to be friends...which I also covered in my post.

Kanzler February 6th, 2016 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9106311)
I don't think anyone here is saying that having a romantic relationship that blooms from a friendship is a bad thing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. Heck, my current partner was my best friend for a good few years! But the idea that you need to be friends with someone before you date them is silly. Match-making has existed for ages, from hiring a professional to having friends arrange blind dates to modern internet dating sites, and those relationships can be just as good as ones that start from friendships. Unless there is hard data proving that one method leads to better relationships, I wouldn't try ranking one against the other.

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.

For your first point, there was a poster before you who mentioned that joining someone's circle of friends would harm their chances of getting with them, and I wanted to provide a counterpoint to that. I don't think I claimed that you need to be friends with someone before you date them, just that it is a good strategy. And yes, regardless of whether you're friends or not pre-relationship, not being able to keep up a level of communication and intimacy during a relationship will reduce the chances of it succeeding. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9106311)
As for your last paragraph, what exactly about that differentiates "friendzoning" from regular rejection? People in this thread seem to be equating the two a lot, and while "friendzoning" is a type of rejection, not every rectangle is a square.

Well, when you "reject" someone in the context of a relationship, you're breaking up with them and that comes with higher emotional stakes. I made the comparison between incompatibilities surfacing outside the context of a relationship (friendzoning) and withing a relationship (breakup), and not between friendzoning and regular rejections in general which is the comparison you seem to be suggesting here, so I don't have an answer to your question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9106311)
"No" is a full sentence. If someone tells you "no," then you need to listen. It is an answer by itself, and does not require any further explanation or reasoning. It is not my responsibility to "put someone in a frame of mind" to stop pursuing me, and that line of thinking verges on rape apology. "You should have said why you didn't want to have sex with him when you said no - maybe if you had, he wouldn't have kept pursuing you!" Someone who gets rejected has to acknowledge the rejection and move past it on their own terms - nobody is responsible for helping them.

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.

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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9106311)
Would it be nice to get an explanation when you get rejected? Oftentimes, hell yes! There's no denying that. But 1) that doesn't mean it will help, and 2) it still doesn't mean you're entitled to hearing the reasons. When my first boyfriend dumped me, he thought he was "helping" me by giving me a long laundry list of reasons why he had done it. It didn't give me closure; it just made me upset.

That's what I'd consider kind of being an ass. And it's contrary to the point I'm making, which is communicate with the aim of providing the other person closure. Giving a laundry list of reasons for a break up, possibly because you need to emotionally unload upon someone (I think we all know of examples where the breakup is harder on the person doing the breakup), is not going to achieve that goal. If there's no way to do that because the other person is not in a place to appreciate an explanation or because the first person lacks the means to provide a respectful enough explanation, or perhaps because the two people involved don't know each other well enough to communicate constructively in an emotionally tense situation, or for any other reason, then no, of course, the means of explaining do not justify the ends of closure and helping the other person move on. That's why I mentioned that it's the generally appropriate thing to do; it won't apply to everybody.

Universe February 6th, 2016 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9104866)
If we're going to talk about the "freindzone," the other side of the coin is women who get "girlfriendzoned" by straight men. It is really frustrating to be seen only as a potential girlfriend by someone you like and trust, especially when you're clearly not interested in romantic relationship for whatever reason. It's also frustrating when someone acts like they want to be your friend, but are only interested in you romantically. Just be honest about your intentions, people!

I actually came in this thread just to make a point like this one. All this crying out about friendzones is hypocritical, because the ones crying did the loverzoning first. If a person only has the capability to be nice and giving to someone they perceive as a potential lover, then no wonder they're always "just a friend". First of all, to have a healthy relationship with someone you can't go into it expecting anything out of them but mutual respect. To do otherwise means you have selfish intentions and she can feel them coming off of you like a heavy, nasty, fuckboy aura. Something to keep in mind.

Kanzler February 6th, 2016 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universe (Post 9107332)
I actually came in this thread just to make a point like this one. All this crying out about friendzones is hypocritical, because the ones crying did the loverzoning first. If a person only has the capability to be nice and giving to someone they perceive as a potential lover, then no wonder they're always "just a friend". First of all, to have a healthy relationship with someone you can't go into it expecting anything out of them but mutual respect. To do otherwise means you have selfish intentions and she can feel them coming off of you like a heavy, nasty, ****boy aura. Something to keep in mind.

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.

Universe February 6th, 2016 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9107533)
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.

Had a feeling someone was gonna point out the gendered terms. Obviously that's situational context and doesn't really need to be addressed. Change the genders, make them genderless, who cares.. it's really the same point in the end.

The thing is I'm not talking about rejection and being friends with the person who rejected you. I'm talking about people who go after someone with the intention of dating/having sex while using tactics like being really nice and buying them things "out of the goodness of their heart", then becoming loudly bitter if the person doesn't wanna date or sleep with them afterall; as if they were expecting romantic/sexual affection just for being kind and giving gifts. Those are things that should be done because you're a good person, not because of a gross hardly-ulterior motive.

Electricbluewolf February 8th, 2016 2:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9106311)
As for your second paragraph, while that's not really on the subject of "friendzoning" imo, that is still really creepy and not okay, both on the part of that guy and your coworker. I completely agree that dating someone only "because they seem nice" is so icky. "Being nice" is something I expect of all people - if your primary positive quality is "being nice" then it's hardly a ringing endorsement. Also, this is absolutely a social pressure that's mostly aimed at women. Guy don't really get told "you don't seem interested in that girl, but she seems nice, give her a chance!" as regularly as women. Also no, sending someone 30+ texts is not "being friendly." It sounds like your coworker has really bad judgement, please don't take her advice. :/
~Psychic

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

illumine February 8th, 2016 3:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricbluewolf (Post 9109472)
Being nice and friendly is what you look for in a human being non-stop

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. 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.

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.

Quote:

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).
Unrequited love is just love, but not requited. Or not known to be such. Other than the other person being loved, they needn't say something before people are capable of loving them. Love isn't just a feeling, or a feeling plus some other stuff, so that's fine. It can be as sustainable as any other love is, but with less likelihood of causing issues to a thus unfounded relationship (and a relationship without love was possibly quite unstable from the beginning, let alone if it gets worse), and in any case it isn't generally a question of starting a new 'relationship.' If their love caused problems to their other personal relationships, due to their being directed towards the beloved, then that could surely be 'blamed' on the beloved, or perhaps not if they were in love. In this it is like any other earnest passion.

Pinkie-Dawn February 9th, 2016 9:39 AM

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.

Psychic February 9th, 2016 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9106931)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9106931)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9106931)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9107533)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricbluewolf (Post 9109472)
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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9109509)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9109509)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9109509)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn (Post 9111390)
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

illumine February 9th, 2016 8:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9112187)
First off, correcting people's posts is really uncool, please don't do it. :/

So then what, use the Mystery Method? At the least it would avoid oneitis, of all things.

Quote:

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.
Perhaps they're nice to anyone whom they like, generally. It doesn't make it more effective, does it? If it's counter-productive in such a field, and yet was the socially mandated approach, then that's still a valid problematic - other than the 'friendzone' presumably not being a question of railing against particular vaguely-defined people. Really this just seems to come down to saying that nobody should want to be in a relationship with someone else, which is strange in the context.

Quote:

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.
That's not the question, mostly that 'success' of some sort was valued by both members of relationships was valid, so that your problem is merely with the 'niceness' and not the 'video game' aspect seems questionable, as if an attempt to slur people by association pointlessly. Relationships were generally speaking not entered into on the principle of Rise Against's 'Swing Life Away.' This part is mostly amusing because of Espeon, though. Don't get oneitis, date a clone.

Quote:

Also, most of what I could actually parse from this is wrong from a historical, psychological and sexuality standpoint.
This is because I'm insane and celibate. Just as you are not psychic.

Kanzler February 9th, 2016 8:38 PM

Quote:

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.
Is this really an issue? I feel that people in general act a certain way to others solely because they're interested romantically/sexually. If I, as a man, believe that women expect niceness in a partner, then I'm going to try and provide that kind of personality. If I were a woman, then I'd try and provide whatever kind of personality I think men would like (I do not know). Some people are genuine about it and already "have it", some people are still genuine and try to better themselves, and some people are just not the nicest people to begin with and are duplicitous about it.

Keiran February 9th, 2016 9:00 PM

I don't think the friendzone is something that should exist. I think people that feel they've been friendzoned and get upset over it don't know how to have a healthy relationship. It's also hypocritical since they're basically relationshipzoning the target of their infatuation. These types of people believe they deserve anything just for putting in minimum effort, regardless of what the other party feels. Ultimately I feel it's a terrible concept, but at least it seems to be dying out. I don't really hear the term being used that much anymore - I'm guessing because the criticism of it made those people realize how childish and creepy it was.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being someones friend and it's silly to get upset over it. And, yes, men and women can strictly just be friends with each other; I've literally been in the bathroom with a friend while she was using the toilet and we've never even thought of a relationship.

Kanzler February 9th, 2016 9:16 PM

Isn't it privileged to be calling out relationshipzoning like it's equivalent to friendzoning? I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it's easier to be crushed upon than have that unrequited crush yourself.

Psychic February 9th, 2016 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9112286)
So then what, use the Mystery Method? At the least it would avoid oneitis, of all things.

I think you're responding to the wrong quote. I was saying you were being rude by picking on Electricbluewolf's mistake.

I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say here. I specifically told you how to woo women:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9112187)
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.

It's not rocket science, and you do not have to resort to sexist and dehumanizing pick-up artistry. I'm also not sure what you are picking on Pinkie-Dawn's oneitis, that's uncalled for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9112286)
Perhaps they're nice to anyone whom they like, generally. It doesn't make it more effective, does it? If it's counter-productive in such a field, and yet was the socially mandated approach, then that's still a valid problematic - other than the 'friendzone' presumably not being a question of railing against particular vaguely-defined people. Really this just seems to come down to saying that nobody should want to be in a relationship with someone else, which is strange in the context.

Wow, that's quite the strawman you built at the end there. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said "nobody should want to be in a relationship," because since my first post here I have been advocating that instead of lying to someone and pretending to be their friend so as to woo them, just be honest about your feelings from the beginning.

If you really don't believe that there are people whining about how they are Nice Guys who keep getting "friendzoned," just do a Google search. The proof is in the pudding.

I reiterate: you should act with a basic level of niceness towards everyone, regardless of whether you like them. How you treat people actually says a lot about you. I pay attention to how people treat retail employees, waitresses and other people on-the-job; how someone treats an employee says a lot about their personality. It is very telling, and is a much better indicator of whether or not the person is dating material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9112286)
That's not the question, mostly that 'success' of some sort was valued by both members of relationships was valid, so that your problem is merely with the 'niceness' and not the 'video game' aspect seems questionable, as if an attempt to slur people by association pointlessly. Relationships were generally speaking not entered into on the principle of Rise Against's 'Swing Life Away.' This part is mostly amusing because of Espeon, though. Don't get oneitis, date a clone.

What? I don't have a problem with "niceness" - I have a problem when you're only nice to someone because you're trying to get something out of them. How on Earth did you get the impression that I think treating women like machines or video games is acceptable when I specifically called it "fked up"? I literally just said that you need to treat women like unique human beings, which is what we are. None of my points have been complicated, and the fact that you are misrepresenting so much of what I said is not a failure on my part.

I hate to say it, but based on your previous post, which you acknowledge was messed up, you are seriously not in a position to talk about what relationships were or are. I also have no idea why you're talking about Espeon or clones, it is very weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by illumine (Post 9112286)
This is because I'm insane and celibate.

Based on this, I assume that means you acknowledge that your post was incredibly backwards-thinking, sexist and wrong. That's great to hear.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9112296)
Is this really an issue? I feel that people in general act a certain way to others solely because they're interested romantically/sexually. If I, as a man, believe that women expect niceness in a partner, then I'm going to try and provide that kind of personality. If I were a woman, then I'd try and provide whatever kind of personality I think men would like (I do not know). Some people are genuine about it and already "have it", some people are still genuine and try to better themselves, and some people are just not the nicest people to begin with and are duplicitous about it.

Gonna assume you agree with the rest of my post since you have nothing else to add, glad you feel the same way. :)

First off, you should be nice because that is a basic thing all human beings should be. We do not get rewarded for showing a basic amount of human decency. Again, if someone thinks one of their best qualities is their niceness, then it signals to potential suitors that there is nothing else interesting or attractive about them. Again, see here.

Of course people only act a certain way towards people they're romantically/sexually interested in, nobody's denying that. But each person, regardless of their gender, likes and is attracted to different things. Being nice to someone is generally not attractive in itself, because again, we expect everyone to be "nice" at the very least. It's a very, very low bar, and if all you are is "nice" then it doesn't set you apart from anyone else.

This is why the whole rhetoric of "I'm a Nice Guy, why don't women like me?" is so ridiculous. You get people act with a basic amount of niceness to the object of their affection, and get confounded when their affection isn't returned. It's because being nice doesn't actually make you stand out or signify on its own that you're interested in someone. Ugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9112345)
Isn't it privileged to be calling out relationshipzoning like it's equivalent to friendzoning? I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it's easier to be crushed upon than have that unrequited crush yourself.

That's not what privilege is. And that's really only your opinion. I'm not sure if you've been reading through people's comments here, but a number of people have said that it is frustrating to find out that someone was only pretending to be your friend and was only being nice to you because of ulterior motives. It is especially frustrating when this happens to you many times. It makes it difficult to trust people, because you don't know who is your friend and who you can trust.

~Psychic

Kanzler February 9th, 2016 10:15 PM

Frustrating sure, but you're not the one with your hopes dashed. I don't know, I have seen people crush hard and it sucks for them when the feelings aren't returned. That's why I think it's a bit cushy when we're talking about friendzoning and relationshipzoning like they're equivalent in severity. For me, people complaining from a position of superiority that marginalizes more severe suffering = privilege.

Regarding your other points, you shouldn't construe my lack of response as agreement. You're misreading my points and I don't think it's necessary for me to quote myself and highlight all those points that you didn't address and if you did address would make your response redundant.

I also think that you're really oversimplifying and diminishing the value of "niceness". When we praise someone for being nice, we're not saying that oh they're basic human levels of nice and that's awesome because they're a regular decent person. No, we're talking about someone who goes above and beyond that. I have some friends, on PC, for that matter, whose highest quality, in my opinion, is their niceness. They are patient, kind, understanding, with real commitment. When they talk, there's no judgment or attitude in what they have to say or think. That's a really nice person, and someone who shows a level of kindness that honestly isn't common. And you could use any of those, among other, words to describe them, but nice isn't off the mark at all.

And being nice to someone does indeed make you stand out among everybody else. And that's because when you're nice to someone because you're interested in them, you're probably not showing them the same respect or attention that you do everybody else - you're going beyond that, you're doing favours, you're complimenting them, whatever, all of which can absolutely described as "nice"!

What I'm getting from what you're saying is that being nice is just a basic human thing that everybody should have and really wouldn't distinguish a person from others when it comes to what matters in a relationship. I couldn't disagree with that more.

Pinkie-Dawn February 9th, 2016 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9112187)
Unless she said "I only see you as a friend," I'm not sure this qualifies as "friendzoning."

She did say she only viewed me as a friend.

Quote:

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
You know the saying that every person is unique, so it would be impossible for me to find someone like her who wouldn't friendzone me without using eharmony, because I have a limit on how many websites I join for college reason. So yeah, you could say that I may have somewhat moved on.

Psychic February 9th, 2016 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9112415)
Frustrating sure, but you're not the one with your hopes dashed. I don't know, I have seen people crush hard and it sucks for them when the feelings aren't returned. That's why I think it's a bit cushy when we're talking about friendzoning and relationshipzoning like they're equivalent in severity. For me, people complaining from a position of superiority that marginalizes more severe suffering = privilege.

We all get rejected, ladies included. It sucks, but that's why you don't get crazy invested in a mere crush. Again, oneitis. But you're still missing my point about what makes "loverzoning" different from a regular, healthy crush. Someone who feels "friendzoned" generally engages in the following behaviour:
  • Befriends people under false pretenses
  • Lies about their feelings
  • Only acts nice, caring, attentive etc. because they have ulterior motives
  • Assumes that if they are nice enough, caring enough, attentive enough, they will have earned enough points to be rewarded with sex/a relationship
  • Act entitled and truly believe they deserve a reward
Does that still suck? Obviously! But they set themselves up for disappointment. Their inability to be honest and sense of entitlement are the reasons they wound up in the position of being "friendzoned." That doesn't make it any less unpleasant, but compared to the person who is the subject of all of the deceit, who had no idea what this person was doing all along, who thought they had a loyal and caring friend, and who is expected to reward them with sex/a relationship, I can 100% say that one is more at fault than the other.

You are using the words "superiority," "marginalizes" and "privilege" all incorrectly. What you are saying is that having a crush on someone makes you inferior, insignificant, and means you have less rights or advantages than the object of your desire. If you honestly believe that having a crush on someone is equivalent to literally being less important and having less rights than someone else, you're going to have to prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9112415)
Regarding your other points, you shouldn't construe my lack of response as agreement. You're misreading my points and I don't think it's necessary for me to quote myself and highlight all those points that you didn't address and if you did address would make your response redundant.

When you only acknowledge 10% of what I said, there is no way for me to intuit your reactions to the rest of my post. People have been misreading my points constantly, and I make a point to correct them. I also acknowledge when you and I agree on something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9112415)
I also think that you're really oversimplifying and diminishing the value of "niceness". When we praise someone for being nice, we're not saying that oh they're basic human levels of nice and that's awesome because they're a regular decent person. No, we're talking about someone who goes above and beyond that. I have some friends, on PC, for that matter, whose highest quality, in my opinion, is their niceness. They are patient, kind, understanding, with real commitment. When they talk, there's no judgment or attitude in what they have to say or think. That's a really nice person, and someone who shows a level of kindness that honestly isn't common. And you could use any of those, among other, words to describe them, but nice isn't off the mark at all.

In this context, that's not what I'm referring to. Because when Nice Guys talk about how nice they are, it's often in a basic-human-decency sort of way, or a this-is-what-friends-do kinda way. And they expect a reward for it, the reward being sex or a relationship. If you expect something in return for being nice, then you are literally the opposite of "nice."

Obviously people whose niceness goes above and beyond do exist. I have friends like that too, they're great, but their positive qualities go beyond "nice," just as you described your friends as far beyond simply "nice." They also aren't nice because they want or expect something in return.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9112415)
And being nice to someone does indeed make you stand out among everybody else. And that's because when you're nice to someone because you're interested in them, you're probably not showing them the same respect or attention that you do everybody else - you're going beyond that, you're doing favours, you're complimenting them, whatever, all of which can absolutely described as "nice"!

What I'm getting from what you're saying is that being nice is just a basic human thing that everybody should have and really wouldn't distinguish a person from others when it comes to what matters in a relationship. I couldn't disagree with that more.

But like you said, you're doing more than just being nice when showing interest in someone. Using niceness alone as a metric for discerning whether or not someone likes you wouldn't work. I have had people go above and beyond to be nice to me, but I would never assume that this meant they were attracted to me. Women especially are socialized to always be nice and helpful to everyone (which often gets interpreted as flirtation, even when the woman is clearly just doing her job at work) and men are generally taught to be nice to women. Like you said, it's about going above and beyond, which imo the word "nice" doesn't really convey in this context.

When I said in my previous post that I pay attention to how people treat employees in the service/retail industries, I don't only mean potential suitors, I mean all of my friends. I don't like to associate with people who can't show basic decency to others, and as a result, I've cultivated a stellar group of friends. When looking for a potential suitor, being as nice as my friends is a prerequisite, not a plus. I think a lot of people feel similarly, because we want more than just a Nice Guy.

~Psychic

Kanzler February 9th, 2016 11:55 PM

You said:

Quote:

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.
In response to:

Quote:

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.
So:

Quote:

To me, the first paragraph is based off the assumption that telling an ex why you're breaking up with them will be beneficial.
That's not the assumption, the assumption is that:

Quote:

communicating for the sake of closure is in principle a good thing
And when you say:

Quote:

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.
I had already mentioned that:

Quote:

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.
As for:

Quote:

What you are saying is that having a crush on someone makes you inferior, insignificant, and means you have less rights or advantages than the object of your desire. If you honestly believe that having a crush on someone is equivalent to literally being less important and having less rights than someone else, you're going to have to prove it.
I don't think it's a good idea to tell other people what their words mean.

Being superior means being above someone in a hierarchy or a structure. If you have a crush on someone, they have power over you. So the person being crushed on is superior in that relationship and hence possesses superiority blah blah blah

Marginalize means to make less significant. I believe that if you speak of two scenarios as if they were equal when they are not, then you are making the more severe scenario less significant - hence marginalizing. Like talking about First World Problems in a way that marginalizes problems of greater magnitude in the global South.

Privilege is just some benefit that a group of people have over others. People who don't have unrequited crushes on others have the benefit of not having to feel suck about that crush. That's a privilege. Like how people who aren't Black or Latino or Arab these days have the benefit of not feeling wary about the police.

I realize that you probably engage in some discourse that takes more circumscribed definitions of those words and limits the contexts in which they are used. I'm using those words as they mean generally but I don't think that it makes my usage of those words wrong. I think the average person will find some sense in what I am saying and wouldn't object with my usage of those terms. \

And since when did the conversation around getting friendzoned revolve around "Nice Guys"? How many "Nice Guys" do we actually know in real life? I get this feeling that it's this stereotype or caricature that just went viral a couple of years back thanks to the likes of nigahiga (who I enjoy, no disrespect to him) so I don't see why we're (and not all of us) are focusing on "Nice Guys" when the friendzone (getting placed in that mental category from which relationships do not emerge/getting pulled out of relationship possibility limbo right?) is something that can happen to anybody. The first few posts were all about how this goes both ways and how it happens to individuals, but now we're just revolving around "Nice Guys" because they're so big of a deal, right? Because loverzoning the other person is necessary to getting friendzoned? I feel like you're taking this discussion to a certain case that is stereotypical and isn't reflective of friendzoning as it occurs to most people. I don't think the OP intended this thread to be focused on "Nice Guys" who feel like they're entitled to affection, and in any case, I don't think we should unnecessarily limit this discussion to what in the big picture is a fringe case.

illumine February 10th, 2016 12:44 AM

Quote:

Wow, that's quite the strawman you built at the end there.
Ugh. You're misusing the word 'strawman.' No, I didn't say that I was paraphrasing you. That wasn't what I was responding to, that was an attempt to render you as saying something meaningful in the phrases you repeat. I didn't go ahead and criticise that.

Quote:

You know the saying that every person is unique, so it would be impossible for me to find someone like her who wouldn't friendzone me
Don't find them, then. Disrupt a yoga session half-way through and meanly mis-lead them as to what they are to do, they will probably like you for it. Let them live on in the illusions of the sensuous world.

This post does come across as something like a slightly outré rendition of 'Use Somebody' (because we need some more of those? Well, apparently), so props.

Which is really something that PC needs more of. 'I've been roaming around always looking down at all I see, / Painted Mayers fill a Taillow but can't evolve, / You know that...'?

Quote:

I have been advocating that instead of lying to someone and pretending to be their friend so as to woo them, just be honest about your feelings from the beginning.
Did these people say that they didn't want to be friends, at all, or that being a 'friend' made it more difficult to move on to a relationship than otherwise? While it seems weird to get really offended by the claim that relationships are influenced by the surrounding society and females and males are socialised into different forms of attraction, it does seem that that kind of consideration is a bit foreign to things here generally. Anyway, so other than whether people are nice to some person who expects them to be, and perhaps they would not be so kind, if such a person were genuine - it hardly seems like a moral principle that would cause great chagrin that someone who is in some relation with someone and is also in love with them needs to tell them that before attempting other contact. People can love people for multiple reasons, but not necessarily because they consider their sexual discrimination immaculate.

Quote:

I hate to say it, but based on your previous post, which you acknowledge was messed up, you are seriously not in a position to talk about what relationships were or are.
Nobody said anything about 'messed up,' asylums can be quite neat and house people rather than posts, if one were to be in such, and celibacy is the less messy option, really. In any case, relationships are simple while other matters are more difficult, while in discussing something on PC you might be cursory and flippant, because it's not the point of the board and quite far from it, but realistically relationships are a bit of a free-for-all, although when people make them highly personal matters you might wonder if they're not negotiating their own, which could lead to confusion*.

* OK?

Quote:

I also have no idea why you're talking about Espeon or clones, it is very weird.
Not to get too Delphic Oracle on you, but please try. This thread isn't about your feelings.

Quote:

Based on this, I assume that means you acknowledge that your post was incredibly backwards-thinking, sexist and wrong. That's great to hear.
I do not, for the convenience of others, but if you said 'sexually' then I might acknowledge it. I was referring to your opinion, as it was nothing but. After you smugly failed to comprehend English, however, your attempt to appear sophisticated was hard to take seriously - let alone as not just an expression of your personal feelings - and the misuse of the sexual term specifically in this context was amusing, responses can be meant flippantly in the first place. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, NOT MINE. I CAN READ WHAT I WRITE. Thank you. Maybe it's the lack of capitalisation, and not that you're presumably a native speaker of Spanish.

I mean, I guess you could take these things up with the Catholics, but I hear May had a Skitty, so they're probably busy venerating some dead saint.

Perhaps you meant sexual history, though? It's hard to find a consensus in such spheres, though, anyway, as much as it seems mostly like calling someone's analysis of a piece 'wrong' because some academic said so, while that would usually be in its favour.

That said, as much as I may be 'backwards-thinking,' which I get a lot but is expected of me, and 'sexist,' which I also don't mind in itself, I only acknowledge myself to be 'wrong' sexually. Otherwise I wouldn't be disagreeing. You might get the thing where insults from others can be taken as compliments, however.

Anyway, it's good that you're disturbed by something vaguely perceived in a certain section of words, this must be how Gastly feels when people enter the Tower. In matters of the heart Taillow is broken.

Quote:

You're misreading my points and I don't think it's necessary for me to quote myself and highlight all those points that you didn't address and if you did address would make your response redundant.
Honestly, I don't think that most people in this thread seem to be reading anyone else's posts 'correctly,' apparently, so perhaps that's a feature? You rarely expect discussions of the 'friendzone' to veer off into Guns 'n' Roses songs, but perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate. Except that people seem convinced that I'm reading their posts better than they mine, which seems favourable. Thanks guys. Really, though, you have to wonder what everyone's up to. It's like Space Invaders.

Quote:

It sucks, but that's why you don't get crazy invested in a mere crush. Again, oneitis.
I mean, people aren't necessarily going to not do that because 'oneitis' is a word. Unless this were somewhere else. It just comes across as a 'Haters gonna hate' situation. So to speak.

Situation situation situation situation.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:07 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.