The Friendzone

[Veilex]

In popular culture, friend zone refers to a platonic relationship wherein one person, most commonly a man, wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not.[1][2][3] It is generally considered to be an undesirable or dreaded[4] situation by the lovelorn person.[5] If a desired party does not return or respond affirmatively to the advances or affection of the desiring party, but continues to participate in the friendship in a platonic way, it is sometimes described as friend-zoning.[6] In a related sense of the term, friend zone can describe a "commitment mismatch", such as when two people are sexually involved, but in which one person wants a committed relationship such as being a boyfriend or girlfriend, while the other does not.[7] According to psychologists, the man in a cross-gender friendship is more likely to be attracted to his woman friend than she is to him, and he is more likely to overestimate her interest in a romantic or sexual relationship. The concept has been criticized by feminists as being unfair and misogynistic in imposing an obligation on women to offer sex in return for kind actions by men.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_zone

Are feminists right? Does the "friendzone" impose a quid-pro-quo obligation on women? Are women being expected to trade sex for the kindness of men? Could it be that this is yet another objectification of women, the world over?

Or is the concept "Friendzone" just a reactionary understanding that affections will not be returned on the same level the originator feels (In effect, a rejection)? If the concept "friendzone" is indeed wrong, does that make it unfair to try to get close to someone you're romantically interested in? Does this mean even asking someone on a date is unfair? Is it perhaps unfair to obligate someone to remain friends with the person who does not deem them worthy of affection? Or should the rejected just suck it up and try to continue on with the friendship in spite of being rejected? Is there even a right answer?

Or is there perhaps something else afoot here?

No one likes rejection... and regardless of if "friendzone" is right or wrong, the issue of rejection seems to be glossed over.
In the case of friendzoning, the person desiring a romantic relationship has been rejected... and the target of affection may lose a friend... which is another form of rejection.

Perhaps what we're dealing with is not the "friendzone" at all, but rejection. If this is indeed the case, I think perhaps the presumption of the quid-pro-quo in "friendzone" may be bordering on being a false stereotype. One that is often perpetuated by feminists as "typical of men"... though conspicuously, the term is never brought up when dealing with women... as though women are incapable of being promiscuous. In fact, there is an unspoken undercurrent that seeks out to paint being sexually active, or desiring to be sexually active as being a bad thing... in spite of the fact that part of our core nature is to be sexual creatures.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. What are your thoughts?

[Seeking Serenity]

1. If a person, male or female, has romantic feelings or desires

for another person and those feelings aren't returned or reciprocated, the person whose romantic desires were rejected has no obligation to be or continue to be the object of their affection's "friend."

If Billy wants a romantic relationship with Sally, but Sally doesn't, Billy may be and probably will be hurt (unrequited love typically does hurt a bit), but he should not be chastised or berated if he doesn't want to just be Sally's friend.

[Veilex]

2. "he should not be chastised or berated if he doesn't want to just be Sally's friend"

And yet, common practice will be to demonize him as a "typical man" by women and feminists. After all, this is where terms like "friendzone" emanate from.

[Seeking Serenity]

3. I agree.

I don't much care for those kinds of feminists, myself. I happen to love men (one in particular ) and refuse to see all of them as oppressors of women or potential rapists.

[Major Nikon]

6. This very same dynamic happens when the gender roles are reversed

I've had a few female friends that I knew wanted to take our relationship farther when I was not willing to do so. I don't think that situation is all that uncommon. The thought of demonizing such women for their feelings is laughingly ridiculous and I just don't think it gets any better when the gender roles are reversed. I think anyone who attempts to do so regardless of which way it goes probably has some other issues they need to work through.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. The hypocrisy in some quarters is astounding, like the people who picked over dating websites for

Last edited Fri Jan 23, 2015, 07:37 AM - Edit history (1)

the profiles of self-described "nice guys" to publicly mock. Like "nice guys of OKcupid" or whatever.

Whereas if some woman posts a profile looking for an attractive guy, or a guy with a list of perchance unrealistic attributes that she is looking for, despite the fact that she's overweight or unfortunately hirsute or more Lobelia Sackville-Baggins than Olivia Wilde, etc...

heaven forfend anyone should 'shame' her for putting herself out there and going for what she wants, whether or not she has any chance of getting it.

Because that's what lonely people do on online dating sites. Duh.

But a "dudebro" does it, and he's heteronormative patriarchal entitlement sex-demandingness embodied, or some shit.

[mythology]

4. I think the answer really depends on how the person who has the unrequited feelings reacts

If they are hurt and don't want to remain friends and so walk away that's one thing. Because I think terming it as rejection is part of the problem. They aren't rejecting you as a person, they are saying that they don't want to date you. That can be for many reasons, both about you or about themselves. I spent a long time shut away from relationships because I knew I needed to get myself emotionally healthier and until I accomplished that, I couldn't be right for anybody. But not everybody who wanted to date me during that period understood that it was about me, not about them either as a person or as a potential partner.

But there is some number of people who won't be able to walk away. Some turn to hate (not the fault of the person who doesn't share their feelings) whether that's malicious rumor spreading or violence against either the target of their affections or other women like that guy who went crazy a few months ago in California who thought that women owed him sex.

Or as a friend of mine experienced, the guy who was told that she didn't share his feelings, just kept going. He would tell her that they belonged together, she would say no, we're just friends and she would get an email later saying that he had renewed hope that their relationship would last. It got to the point where he had to be banned from the gym as he wouldn't leave her alone and it was turning scary.

As with most things, you can't control the other person's response, only your own.

[Veilex]

5. "They aren't rejecting you as a person, they are saying that they don't want to date you."

I'd contend that this is still a rejection of a person... as the target of affection has decided the other person is not what they want as a romantic partner because...reasons. Being rejected is firmly independent of the reasons for the rejection. You may feel you would be a bad partner to that person... but that does not in anyway negate or mitigate that it is still a rejection.

"Some turn to hate" - Right...but that is a whole separate issue dealing with psychological imbalances rather than confusing the term "friendzone" with plain old rejection. We could have a entire separate conversation about that topic alone... though its not really pertinent to the current discussion.

"the guy who was told that she didn't share his feelings, just kept going" - Another separate issue. One that involves a lot of retraining society in what is socially acceptable and what isn't... and maybe even some counseling.

"As with most things, you can't control the other person's response" - Very true. Though we, as a society, can improve the likelihood that undesirable occurrences happen less through helping address rejection itself. Our society right now is designed in such a way where rejection is considered a truly evil thing to be avoided at all costs. Advertising tells us daily that we MUST be good enough so we don't get rejected... and the way to do so we must have the newest clothes, accessories, makeup, appliances, cars and so on. Its reinforced through our education... the whole point of an education, or so we're often told, is to GET that job... or put another way, so we wont get rejected from the jobs we apply to.

Instead, I think, teaching our young folk that rejection is not a devaluing event, but rather an opportunity to evolve and grow may be the way to go.
Mike or Lisa didn't want to date you? Hey, don't sweat it. You're still a good person! And now you have more time to work on your hobbies! - Something along the spirit of this statement I think.

Either way, it seems to me that casting it as the "friendzone" distracts from underlying issue that is rejection.
But that just my thoughts on it.

[Major Nikon]

7. It also depends on how the other person reacts

Some people take advantage of others who have romantic feelings for them when they have no intention of reciprocating.

Certainly there are some instances where people engage in inappropriate or even criminal behavior against people they know that don't share their feelings, but I'm not convinced this happens more or less with either gender.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

Until a rejected suitor gets past the hate, they're not really over the rejection.

... but sometimes people have to go through hate to get to indifference.

[kjones]

8. This is something that has recently resurfaced in my life.

There a girl, a very good friend, that I have had feelings for for a very long time.
Throughout the years (since my first awkward attempts at changing the
relationship) things have varied. It is quite painful, honestly, since my feelings
don't seem to dissipate at all (why would they?), and throughout the years,
she's moved from relationship to relationship, finding none of them satisfactory.
Being a close friend and confidant, I suppose, I hear about these things, and
occasionally, I'm really hurt to hear her desires for traits in people, which I feel
at least, I certainly have. It's simply painful to walk that line....to still have feelings
but to still want to stick around as a friend. I'm one of the closest people to her,
and yet, we can't get any closer. I think, last time (quite recently) such topics came
up (both of us drinking, chatting on the phone....always an interesting conversation),
I reaffirmed my feelings, and she lightly (relatively gently) brushed them off...as one
would expect of something uncomfortable (and it is). So I made sure to tell her that
I hoped and wanted to be there, in whatever form, as long as I could be. Of course,
that I wished for her happiness and that, if I had my way, I would either be there
for her all the time (in a relationship) or she would find someone great to fill that role,
and I would be obsolete (as a confidant...close friend, whatever). That I would be
OK with that, as long as she could sort her life out and find some happiness for once
(she tends to be a pretty sad person, and not necessarily without reason. complicated
stories...)

In fact, we had a discussion not several hours ago about rejection. What, with my
being a connoisseur of rejection, I told her how men tend to have a complicated
relationship with rejection.

I'm in the friendzone. It's not that I'm happy with that, so much as I am happy that
we are still on good terms, quite good.

I don't think of the term having anything to do with promiscuity or such. It's an unrequited
love that doesn't destroy the relationship.
Honestly, in my case, I almost did let it destroy things. I was so hurt I withdrew for a while
from the friendship. Very glad I didn't though.

I'm not some kind of "knight" or something about these things. When it comes to her relationships,
my jealousy could probably be measured in megatons...but so long as she's happy. I'd rather have
that friendship and the pain that comes with it rather than nothing.

[kjones]

9. Anyway, guess my point is

if that is something someone would criticize in anyway....well, they just sound kind
of cynical and heartless. Guess they've never loved someone who didn't love them.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. It's not a zone, it's simply not being interested in a romantic relationship.

I've certainly had a few times in my life where I've had to break that news to interested ladies.

I do think that, in my experience, one gendered difference is that men are generally more willing to 'screw around' with someone even if they aren't interested in pursuing an extended relationship, and as long as of course it is not done deceptively there is nothing wrong with that. I don't know, though, it's been a long time since I was single, maybe that has changed.

There were certainly experiences back in my wild and youthful days where I hooked up with someone that it turned out I was not interested in relationship-wise, for whatever reason, like the very attractive young woman in college who nevertheless showed up at my apartment the next day wearing a t-shirt with Reagan on it, and not ironically either.

Sorry, I don't see this working. Hmmm, We can just be friends, though!

Maybe. As long as we don't talk politics.

[chrisa]

13. Imo, it's whiny and entitled.

"Boo hoo! How dare she not worship the ground I walk on, because that's what I do to her! What can I do to be good enough for her!?" It's pretty pathetic. Why waste time on someone who will not want to have a relationship with you?

[Veilex]

15. "Why waste time on someone who will not want to have a relationship with you" - Indeed.

I'm fully of the opinion that the right thing to do is kick her to the curb and be done with her.
I don't agree with you that its "whiny and entitled" though. Its just a realization that a person has been rejected by someone they were interested in. I don't see that as entitled... whiny? Eh...maybe a little. But definitely not entitled...unless you mean entitled to the aforementioned realization.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I think in terms of social networks, bigger is better.

Don't kick her to the curb... date her friends.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. I agree.

But the same logic applies to bitter & lonely women who complain endlessly that men are programmed by the male gaze objectifico-porno-phallic industrial complex to only want women who are thin and "hawt" grumble grumble grumble

[Bonobo]

17. BITTER, LONELY WOMEN

I just wanted to umm, amplify that phrase.

[chrisa]

13. Dupe

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. A guy on the losing end of "commitment mismatch" is a stalker

A guy on the winning end is a player.

Like most of prevailing social thought, it's all one big kobayashi maru and therefore not worth respecting.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. That's why the only way to win is to be like Captain Kirk.