Regarding the so-called "friend zone"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is thing exactly? I notice that it's mentioned quite a bit on MRA/PUA-type webshites [sic], and from my understanding it's this inescapable black hole into which relationships can fall into a state of permanent platonism. Entering the "friend zone" seems to be the start of a histrionic display of wailing, gnashing of teeth and the rending of clothes on the part of the hapless male seeking a sexual relationship. Or so I would guess from the use of the term as I've seen it.

The thing is... My experiences don't square with the notion of the "friend zone" at all. Being friends with someone doesn't mean I can't have sex with them - indeed, I have had sex with friends. It wasn't a big deal, all it required was a mutual desire for some physical fun.

Of course, I get the impression that some of those whining about the so-called "friend zone" are seeking a full-on sexual relationship with someone who isn't reciprocating those desires. But even then, I don't understand how these men can exclude the possibility of women changing their minds about someone. Nor can I understand why it should be so difficult for those desperately desiring an intimate physical relationship to try to find someone else.

I suspect what these men suffer from is a painful lack of self-awareness concerning their own shortcomings. Just look at this article (contains imagery not safe for work!) (http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/youll-need-more-than-just-your-vagina-to-compete-with-the-future-nsfw/#more-2700), in which the author extols the virtues of future advances in masturbation technologies.

Now let me say that I goddamn love porn, and sexual simulations along the lines the author describes would be a whole lot of fun. But in singing the praises of such hypothetical developments, I think the author betrays a lot about what they think women should be - submissive sex dolls who are physically on terms with Barbie. I can't help but feel that this attitude is going to be reflected in the way they pursue sexual relationships, and that their sexual tastes are ultimately boring and self-serving. Small wonder then that such men have trouble finding sexual relationships in this day and age, so far removed from the faux-nostalgia for a Stepford Wives-esque past that never actually existed.

Men like the author of the linked piece seem to be overwhelmingly heterosexual. I've yet to hear of anything remotely similar from bisexual or gay men, and leaving sexual orientation aside the friendzoners' tastes appear to me to be at once dully pedestrian and yet at the same time perfectionist to the point of rejecting any conception of natural bodily beauty. Even in my pornographic fantasies women aren't always perfect, and on the flipside, part of the attraction of porn (for me at least) is that liberation from mundane physicality and the practicalities of biology. Yet I know that real women have goals, tastes, aspirations and motivations of their own and that entering into sexual relationship involves give and take on all sides.

Finally, there seems to be a contradiction inherent in the kind of worldview reflected by the "friend zone" whiners. On the one hand they speak of deep and meaningful relationships (or at least they give the impression of saying that's what they want), and yet articles like the aforementioned speak otherwise. It seems like these guys want to have their cake and eat it - they want the exclusivity of a monogamous relationship combined with the "instant on-demand" sexual activity that is more reminiscent of my experience with casual flings.

Maybe somebody has links to a decent article? Is this something that perhaps psychologists have looked at?

[bcbm]

What is thing exactly? I notice that it's mentioned quite a bit on MRA/PUA-type webshites [sic], and from my understanding it's this inescapable black hole into which relationships can fall into a state of permanent platonism. Entering the "friend zone" seems to be the start of a histrionic display of wailing, gnashing of teeth and the rending of clothes on the part of the hapless male seeking a sexual relationship. Or so I would guess from the use of the term as I've seen it.

friend zone is basically some assholes think that because they act in ways vaguely resembling actual human beings towards a woman she should have sex with them but when this doesn't happen it is 'friend zoned'


I suspect what these men suffer from is a painful lack of self-awareness concerning their own shortcomings.

yeah and an unrealistic/completely self-serving view of how relationships should work

[Radio Spartacus]

The friend zone is a myth propagated by men who feel entitled to sexual relations because they have been kind. The term demonizes women for not being attracted to someone. To use the "friend zone" term hints that the friendship was likely initiated in a deceitful way anyway, it implies that a non-sexual relationship with an attractive woman is a failure.

Basically, sexists are mad that they keep putting kindness tokens into these machines called "women" and those machines aren't dispensing sex on the merit of virtue alone.

[Halert]

It's an attempt to rationalize unanswered love. unanswered love hurts a lot, the friend zone is an attempt to rationalize it so that it hurts less. A lot of sexist assumption are made about woman in the usage of friend zone and that is a problem.

[Anti-Traditional]

It's an attempt to rationalize unanswered love. unanswered love hurts a lot, the friend zone is an attempt to rationalize it so that it hurts less. A lot of sexist assumption are made about woman in the usage of friend zone and that is a problem.

This. I also think a lot of it is down to the fear of having genuine affection for someone who they might have only previously appreciated for their sexual attractiveness.

[human strike]

Perceiving someone purely as a sexual object excludes the possibility of any kind of genuine friendship or platonic relationship. The "friend zone" is an unwanted situation because it isn't explicitly sexual or romantic. It's an extension of the playground "girls are icky" logic.

That isn't to say that men who don't have this notion of the "friend zone" or do have actual friendships with women necessarily don't objectify them though. It's becoming increasingly common for friends to have sex as friends (which is a nice development, potentially at least), but these hook-up cultures also often, I think, manifest a sense of male entitlement to female bodies, especially when alcohol is introduced into the mix, as if a drunk woman is a sexually available one. I don't wish to make generalisations though, this dynamic is different - or absent - in different social circles.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

In layman's terms:


"Fucking witch thought of me as an actual friend, not as someone who was putting on a creepy nice guy facade to have sex with her wanted a relationship! She friend-zoned me!"

Pretty fucked up when you think of it from the perspective of the person who is supposedly 'doing the friendzoning' in the eyes of these people. A good friend of yours or a nice person you know is only acting the way they do to get into your pants - now that's a 'friendship' that won't last long, but apparently you would be the villain in the logic of the friend one because you were so 'selfish' to refuse someone who was apparently 'entitled' to entering into a sexual relationship with you because they put on a fucking grinning stage act! Disgusting!

[Hiero]

Males who typically use the term 'friend zone', I think are just confused about what they want and what their female friend wants.

There are plenty of males and females who are attracted aesthetically or sexually towards the opposite sex, and upon realisation the person they are attracted to does not reciprocate, most people move on. I find people who use the word 'friend zone' are people who are not experienced in relationships and not experienced enough to accept rejection. Also I find they lack experience enough to accept and comprehend other peoples wants and their own wants.

I have found in my own maturity, that being mature about relationships (all types of relationships) means as an adult you have to release are not entitled to any guarantees with friendships and relationships and people are free to start and stop friendships if they choose to. That is, if two people are not at the same level of friendship, it is ok for one to choose to move on and the other should accept that.

[Sasha]

There is also a whole lot of madonna whore complex in there, "why isn't she interested in me who is always nice to her etc etc etc but always dates all this assholes who are only intetested in sex (like they aren't)"

[Comrade #138672]

It's something made up by sexist "pickup artists". They sell this crap to insecure young men, who are told by society that they must "get laid", or else they will be considered "losers". By framing a lack of romantic and/or sexual interest by women as "being friend-zoned", they "force" a sexist attitude upon themselves. Apparently, they must try even harder if they want to be able to "seduce" her. They tell themselves that women don't want "respectable nice guys", but patriarchal "bad boys" instead. They are told to do all kinds of things, which are actually, in many cases, forms of sexual harassment.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

While I agree with everything that's been posted I think it is also connected with low self-esteem on the part of whoever is making the claim. As if being the person who gets 'friend-zoned' confirms that the individual is incapable of making advances directly and instead has to rely on schemes and or pity to make a romantic connection with another human being. I also want to point out that I've seen more and more women claim that they've been friendzoned by men that have rejected them, I'm not sure what conclusions could be drawn from that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, the "friendzone" is some rape-y shit. "I put all this work into sleeping with this woman, and she just wants a reciprocal, respectful friendship? What a *****!"

*shudder* That shit is vile.

[soc]

Most of the replies here are posted by men who try to be more feminist than feminists, and/or by men who want to be white knights in shining armor. Nonsensical replies, all of them - making it sound like all women are angels and all men are sex-crazy animals.

[Sharia Lawn]

Most of the replies here are posted by men who try to be more feminist than feminists, and/or by men who want to be white knights in shining armor. Nonsensical replies, all of them - making it sound like all women are angels and all men are sex-crazy animals.There is nothing wrong with being a sex-crazy animal. Sex is a relation between humans that seems to be very enjoyable.

However, the friend-zone and "women only like assholes" platitudes are born out of an unwillingness on the the party to adhere to an elementary standard of honesty in their pursuits of sexual relationships.

The expansion of this phenomenon into something that everyone immediately knows of when you mention these terms as well as the fact that it's pretty much universally men making these comments reflects a view toward women that men pick up from the system of patriarchal gender relations organized into existence by the bourgeois family structure.

The premise is that since women are socially conditioned in bourgeois society for very specifically defined social roles, it must follow that they operate similar to machines, given that these roles seem natural in that the common person is not endowed with sophisticated social-scientific interpretive skills. That is, from (perceptively) natural rigidly defined social characteristics, it follows that there also exists natural personal qualities standardized universally for all women. It makes sense then that to try to get what you want out of them, you would perceive of and approach them as machines, computers, or mechanical entities rather than sentient beings with emotions, ideas, and experiences.

It seems that when men are confronted with the material reality that women are humans, they resent it because it starkly contradicts everything about gender and sex that has been conditioned or socialized upon them from the onset of their social existence. This resentment manifests itself into sexism and misogyny, men's rights activism, etc.

It is an extremely offensive, degrading, and demeaning way to look at humans - as mere operational devices that are programmed to perform a certain output in response to non-contextualized, rigidly pre-defined stimuli.

As if people are gumball machines, in which you can place "friendship (whatever warped conception of this the person probably has)" and out comes sex.

[adipocere]

Guys who wind up in the friend zone are ones who are physically unattractive/have bad hygiene, creepy or who talk in too much detail about their past sexual experiences. The first two are sort of obvious, but I don't think men realize how fast they can flick off a switch in a womans brain with locker room stories.
It's not really more complicated than that.

[Goblin]

Where libertarian neckbeards roam.

[soc]

There are many, many women who love male attention and have only male friends. They may have very few, if any, female friends. Such women are attention whores, they enjoy male attention, plus the clueless male friends do everything for these women (expecting serious relationship in return), but in the end these women simply use these men; their real interest is only in the alpha male. These men then complain they are friend zoned - they are actually whiny beta males.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

^That post is utter bullshit, btw, I'm glad you've been restricted.

This sort of attitude stems from an assumption that women have no agency and opinions of their own and should simply respond to the actions of men. I always say to people who complain about being 'friend-zoned' something along the lines of this:

"Oh my god, I've been friend-zoned. We hang out and watch movies but she doesn't want to have sex with me. She talks to me about her problems but never wants to start a real relationship. etc"

vs

"Oh my god, I've been girlfriend-zoned. I just wanted to hang out and watch movies with a friend but he's acting as if that gives him the right to have sex with me. I thought he was my friend and I could talk to him but all he wants is to turn our friendship into something its not. etc"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Guys who wind up in the friend zone are ones who are physically unattractive/have bad hygiene, creepy or who talk in too much detail about their past sexual experiences. The first two are sort of obvious, but I don't think men realize how fast they can flick off a switch in a womans brain with locker room stories.
It's not really more complicated than that.

Doesn't this come perilously close to stereotyping women as a bunch of prudes?

[Creative Destruction]

It's really disturbing, the thought that straight men can't have meaningful, non-sexual relationships with women.

[bcbm]

It's really disturbing, the thought that straight men can't have meaningful, non-sexual relationships with women.

men and women can't be friends, haven't you seen 'when harry met sally?'

[adipocere]

Doesn't this come perilously close to stereotyping women as a bunch of prudes?
No, it calls attention to the fact that men seem to think that women's lib is nothing more then our ability to fuck outside marriage and get an abortion - and as a result, men seem to think that women, who are all fucking and aborting, should not be sexually offended by men who brag about how many of these "types" they fuck.

[Firebrand]

I think another factor that needs to be considered is that in modern western society, a relationship involving sex (excluding one night stands), is a high risk relationship, whereas one without sex is more low risk. Especially for teenagers and people in their early twenties, a friendship is far more likely to survive than a sexual relationship, so if there is already a friendship present people can be unwilling to risk losing something good for the sake of physical gratification.

Because sexual relationships are generally expected to be monogamous the stakes are a lot higher. If you have sex with someone else, or lose interest in having sex with the person, or just aren't keen on following the accepted progression of events for the relationship, you are expected to have a massive fight and cut ties with each other. Whereas if you do not introduce a sexual component there is less stress on the relationship and it is more likely to remain intact. This is especially true when you are young.
In other words if you stay "just friends" then the odds are you will still be a part of each others lives for years to come, hanging out, talking and generally enjoying each others company. But if you start having sex you instantly increase the risk of breaking up and losing that person entirely. Not to mention seriously destabilizing your friendship group if you've been friends for a long time. While the idea of sex with a given friend may not be unappealing, the risks that societal expectations place on it often serve to make it not seem worth it.

[rednordman]

Guys who wind up in the friend zone are ones who are physically unattractive/have bad hygiene, creepy or who talk in too much detail about their past sexual experiences. The first two are sort of obvious, but I don't think men realize how fast they can flick off a switch in a womans brain with locker room stories.
It's not really more complicated than that.The sad harsh truth i hate to say. The thing that i would like to add though, is the sort of emotive rhetoric that these sites use to describe people in the 'friend zone'. Honestly i'm gobsmacked at how nasty some of it is.

OK, so its not really where a lot of men want to be with a woman they fancy, but it doesn't make you a 'pathetic excuse of a human, or a coward or a '#cue many low sexist insults that are not even allowed on this forum-and for good reason#'.

Anyway, I wonder is this really just a bit of a marketing buzzword nowadays. Virtually all of those sites are so blatantly trying to make a cheap easy buck, you'd be silly to believe it. I'v also noticed a load of badly disguised plagiarism too, and people recycling other peoples advice so precisely, its as if the are reading it straight from that source.