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?