I want to state the friendzone is bullshiit! Post your experiences here.

[massaki]

If you really like a girl you tell her you like her and then she says yes or no. The friend zone is created from guys and gals from not being honest about their feelings and intentions.. I just got rejected by a girl and I feel really proud of it, because that rejection would have taken months of me being in the friend zone, but i avoided that and told her i liked her and asked her out. You say what you want i'd rather have embarrassment then regret. 

 

Post your experiences here.

[Kevin Beal]

I'm really glad you had such a positive experience and took your heart in your hands and did something very courageous. Good for you, man!

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "bullshit" when you refer to the friend zone, I might agree.

[massaki]

By bullshit i mean it doesn't exist. Guy's just say that instead of putting their futures in their own hands.

I'm really glad you had such a positive experience and took your heart in your hands and did something very courageous. Good for you, man!

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "bullshit" when you refer to the friend zone, I might agree.

 

 

Thanks, I had a history of waiting forever and ,then getting rejected, but I chose to change that and take things into my own hands.

[Lars]

Yes, friend-zoning typically occurs due to a lack of direct assertion even though it's pretty damn obvious when somebody has affection for you.Young women tend to friend-zone multiple infatuated guys in order to extract as much male utility/resources as possible to compensate for the useless alphas they might be banging or looking for.- A man is foolish for being strung along without any meaningful reciprocation.- A woman is heartless for taking advantage of an unassertive man's feelings.It doesn't seem possible for a man to 'friend-zone' a woman, since women usually perceive a lack of sexual attention as automatically insulting and men don't really have anything to gain from a lady they deem unattractive.I used to have a massive crush on some scatter-brain girl, an incredibly charming person who appeared to be a good friend, although it took me a while to realize how deceptive and manipulative she was. Turns out that I was just a little contextual pawn selected from her vast collection of equally disposable acquaintances (thousands). I won't be surprised if she ends up as a politician, how ironic.

[Lingum]

I think Lars summarizes what I consider to be a valid application of the friendzone. Of course, most men use this as an excuse to avoid self-honesty, which is why they're in that predicament in the first place. However, it still applies to a subset of women that realize a man only has romantic interest in her, which she doesn't share, but continuously dangle the prospect of such a relationship with ambiguous language and affection for other reasons.

 

The friendzone is ultimately a choice both participants make, usually with one party less conscious about it.

[MysterionMuffles]

Yeah it is bullshit beause--and this will go for both genders but lets go with the norm--when a man know he likes a woman he will do almost everything to be there for her. Everything except be honest about his interest in her. Not until other men start coming into play and then he'll assert his interest a little too late. The ones that feel entitled to sexual reciprocity are the nice guys who are just as low and creepy as the explicitly manipulative abuse boyfriend. There are "Alphas" who assert dominance in a more obvious way than the "Beta." The beta is all about indirect communication of his interest in a woman and gets mad when she just so happen to not NOTICE his interest.

 

I think the friendzone is bullshit because a real friend would be okay with getting rejected by a friend who doesn't share the same romantic feelings. More often than not, the rejection is implicit because these guys show interest in too many implicit ways. I could be wrong about this, but if a man would just ask a woman out and be honest about his feelings toward her, I think this kind of man never gets into the friendzone because they don't take it personally. 

 

Whether a woman wants him or not does not reflect on his value, rather it's a reflection of her value. This doesn't mean she's less than the guy if she just doesn't like him, rather they just have a clash of values that don't line up enough to start a relationship.

[RyanT]

It doesn't seem possible for a man to 'friend-zone' a woman, since women usually perceive a lack of sexual attention as automatically insulting and men don't really have anything to gain from a lady they deem unattractive.

 

....It does happen, although of course more often than not you see guys who're 'friends' with less attractive girls who he'll use for a shag when there's no-one else available. Pretty similar set up? 'The friends with benefits zone'.

 

Totally agree with Rainbow Jamz that the whole concept is a contradiction in terms, real friendships aren't based on fear, deceit and ulterior motives...though sadly they're the kind of relationships most people are accustomed to...Hence I don't think 'foolish' really does it justice, there's one L in there too many.

 

Stef's forever asking callers, where  their friends/family were to say 'dude you're being used, get out of there!!!' 

 

...In fact, all too often the only people who are actually give you the reality in those situations are those who actively dislike you, and seek to use the truth as a weapon to provoke self attack....

 

How fucked up is that??    

 

and that's the crux of this...It's the tip of a very big iceberg?

 

So if you're hanging around some girl, scared to admit how you feel to her, hoping and praying she'll somehow realize

...yet deep down knowing you're feelings will be rejected..that particular relationship's probably the least of your worries. 

 

Certainly that was my experience anyway...  

[PatrickC]

I'd like to throw in some sympathy here for the average friendzoned chap.. In that our current culture values women's relationship needs much more higher than men's needs and will often accuse a man's need of sex as being degenerate.

 

That said, I do understand where the OP is coming from in all this. And awesome for you fella that you now approach romantic interests in this manner. It only highlights why boys need better parents to school them in this world. Whereby they will demand better relationships with females into adulthood.

[Josh F]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.  The wait, linger, be nice, but not be honest approach that lands men in the friendzone are all indicators of insecurities which will otherwise plague the relationship.  I don't blame women for avoiding relationships with those men in the least, and I think the blame that men in the friendzone throw at those women are perfect examples of WHY those women should avoid relationships with those men in the first place.  The friendzone'd man is not seeking intimacy, but approval.  

[Kevin Beal]

If people were more honest about their intentions then this would be avoided, sure. But how do people end up in the friend zone? I know guys who flirted and did pretty much everything short of saying "hey, I find you attractive and want to go on a date with you" and they still got friend zoned. That is to say it was obvious for everyone to see that they were interested, including the women who continued to accept favors and support from these guys. And instead of shying away, they do just enough to maintain that one sided relationship the way that it is, because it's really nice to have someone want to give you things and listen intently.

 

When a friend zoning happens, it's pretty clear that both parties are responsible for that unfortunate situation. It's usually pretty obvious to me when someone is attracted to me before they ever say anything, and I don't think I'm special in that way.

 

It's easy to say that people should be more direct, but the strategy of getting to know each other like friends and then ask out later actually works out for a lot of people. I'm sure you know a couple like that. If rejection is a big enough negative for you and you don't mind wasting more time, then it's not the worst strategy in the world.

 

It works both ways, but to take the typical example, one reason that women friend zone guys is to have them as a backup in case that the person they are crushing on doesn't want to date them, specifically because they know that friend zoned guy is into them.

 

It's really not so innocent as you might think:

[Lars]

....It does happen, although of course more often than not you see guys who're 'friends' with less attractive girls who he'll use for a shag when there's no-one else available. Pretty similar set up? 'The friends with benefits zone'.

 

Totally agree with Rainbow Jamz that the whole concept is a contradiction in terms, real friendships aren't based on fear, deceit and ulterior motives...though sadly they're the kind of relationships most people are accustomed to...Hence I don't think 'foolish' really does it justice, there's one L in there too many.

 

Stef's forever asking callers, where  their friends/family were to say 'dude you're being used, get out of there!!!' 

 

...In fact, all too often the only people who are actually give you the reality in those situations are those who actively dislike you, and seek to use the truth as a weapon to provoke self attack....

 

How fucked up is that??

Misguided is a better word rather than foolish, I agree.I was under the impression that 'friend-zoning' implies no sexual activity, so it must be defined differently when a man does it to a woman. So when a man friend-zones a woman he is taking advantage of her sexually, but refusing to provide the time and resources she naturally desires in return (requires an insecure woman to stick around). Sounds like typical alpha behavior... ironic?I'm still not sure whether to call that "friend-zoning" though.Also, regarding the video Kevin linked, it's a good example of the disconnected/narcissistic thought process of good-looking women due to rarely being called out on their bullshit. All the people included in the video were quite attractive in general, just an observation. I wonder how the answers would compare with less attractive individuals.

[RyanT]

Misguided is a better word rather than foolish, I agree.I was under the impression that 'friend-zoning' implies no sexual activity, so it must be defined differently when a man does it to a woman. So when a man friend-zones a woman he is taking advantage of her sexually, but refusing to provide the time and resources she naturally desires in return (requires an insecure woman to stick around). Sounds like typical alpha behavior... ironic?I'm still not sure whether to call that "friend-zoning" though.Also, regarding the video Kevin linked, it's a good example of the disconnected/narcissistic thought process of good-looking women due to rarely being called out on their bullshit. All the people included in the video were quite attractive in general, just an observation. I wonder how the answers would compare with less attractive individuals.

Well my point is probably most western males are raised from birth to accept this kind of shit from women to some degree or another,There's a couple who live near me, both educated middle-class salary workers, she's pretty, tall and slim, not jaw-dropping but a good steady 8, he's the kinda guy who wears those comic t-shirts even though he's pushing 30....Decent job though. Apparently they dated for a while at university but broke up and 'stayed good friends' she met someone else and had a kid, he was the godfathers! That guy walked out on her and the baby and in stepped the guy (we'll call him Tim) anyway before long they got engaged and started trying for a baby of their own, only turns out Tim's firing blanks, in the end it came out that might be because he smoked the odd crafty joint over at his mates house. She went ape shit at this great betrayal, kicked him out the house, pawned the engagement ring and a few weeks later starts seeing this sleazy type guy with 2 kids to 2 women and a Che Guevara tattoo lol. Before long she's 'accidentally' fell pregnant with 'Che boy's' kid, which of course she decided to keep, abortion is against her beliefs..sperm jacking maybe not..as soon after he's served his purpose she 'discovers' he's a creepy nut. (a mass murders face on the arm might have been a clue). As a result of these terrible decisions she found herself nearing 30, on her own and pregnant with a 5 year old, facing losing the house and ending up another welfare mum on the council estate. Just in the nick of time those who comes riding in but good old faithful Sir Tim...just to provide moral support as a 'caring friend' but pretty soon he's moved back in sold his car and now he's supporting her while she stays at home with the baby. Last I heard he'd proposed to her again, turns out he'd gone out and found the ring and bought it back months before.Romantic eh? When I heard the story I could have puked my bollocks up..and donated one to him....Totally blew my mind,Again, just where were his people? Where was his dad at!And I've bought it up with people who know them and the answer I got was, 'well he's happy, she's happy and he's great with the kids (a fair point but in another 20 year's....) so what's the problem?'....Epic culture fail.

[Lingum]

That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard. He's settling for a life of sexual humiliation and exploitation. No one is willing to tell him that his decision might ruin him financially and will ruin his entire life.

 

And I've bought it up with people who know them and the answer I got was, 'well he's happy, she's happy and he's great with the kids (a fair point but in another 20 year's....) so what's the problem?'

 

It has always seemed to me, that when people make excuses for someone else, it's because they're doing the same thing themselves (to some degree). Judging other people for traits you have is uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance). I just listen without interrupting them, and consider it a warning of what's to come.

 

What do you think?

[Psychophant]

Yeah it is bullshit beause--and this will go for both genders but lets go with the norm--when a man know he likes a woman he will do almost everything to be there for her. Everything except be honest about his interest in her. Not until other men start coming into play and then he'll assert his interest a little too late. The ones that feel entitled to sexual reciprocity are the nice guys who are just as low and creepy as the explicitly manipulative abuse boyfriend.

 

Creepy is a buzz word and stands for undesireable, usually coined by entitled chicks who are looking for prince charming. Besides that creepy and low are just adjectives. Sexual gratification is the cheapest form of compensation in the dating game. Honesty ≄ openess. If you don't want to take the risk of curry favoring with her, you better not attend the game otherwise she might string you along and exploit you.

 

Whether a woman wants him or not does not reflect on his value, rather it's a reflection of her value - or preference.

 

 

It is about the whole package man, don't forget about biological factors. It is about status, picker and chooser are of higher status than those people who have to curry favor them if this is considered "the norm," cuz it is the stronger and more comfortable position. The former have to spend less time and energy for the search. The only advantage for men to be in this submissive position is, that it is easier to sense a trap. You know that if you were once pulled over by a gold digger who approached you instead.

 

Since humans aren't just bold apes and therefore their actions aren't limited by the animal kingdom, therfore the accident of birth shouldn't be the main drive of the dating game. Am I asking a chick out just because I am a man. No way dude, I am not playing the dating game.

[Alan C.]

...one reason that women friend zone guys is to have them as a backup in case that the person they are crushing on doesn't want to date them, specifically because they know that friend zoned guy is into them.

 

I found myself in that situation when I was young and naive. I didn't realize what was happening at the time but a woman I was "friends" with, and seeing regularly, let it slip out (probably unintentionally) that plans that she had made with another guy didn't materialize. I was basically the backup plan. Needless to say that it stung. We went out a few more times and it occurred to me that it was never going to go anywhere, so I moved on. To her credit, she paid for half of everything.

 

I don't allow myself to get friend-zoned anymore. I'll make some effort and go out on a few dates, and then move along.

[RyanT]

That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard. He's settling for a life of sexual humiliation and exploitation. No one is willing to tell him that his decision might ruin him financially and will ruin his entire life.

 

 

It has always seemed to me, that when people make excuses for someone else, it's because they're doing the same thing themselves (to some degree). Judging other people for traits you have is uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance). I just listen without interrupting them, and consider it a warning of what's to come.

 

What do you think?

 

Yeah....I mean, as I man can you imagine climbing back into that bed, knowing full well during the interim she'd been bounced all over it by 'sleazy guy'? Errrrr. Obviously financially he's pretty much a signed up to be a slave to her needs, subsidizing all her bad decisions..and when reality softens a little, the kids are at school, she goes back to work, there's a good chance she'll hold him absolute contempt..of course she's attractive and feels she had to 'lower herself' but perhaps more-so because his groveling is a huge mirror reflecting back her selfishness in all it's horrible glory....At which point the easiest thing to do would be decide he's the bad guy and go back to chasing dickheads...and he does love those kids...biological fathers have practically no rights...where would that leave him? That's the real pits of it...  

 

Now I've strayed the conversion a fair bit from the subject at hand, that's certainly not the classic 'friends zone' scenarios, but suppose the moral is, guys in 'the zone' are stood pining at those doors wanting to get in, yet that's perhaps worse case scenario, as the admission fees are nearly always astronomical, but of course by that time he's put her on such a pedestal he'll gladly pay..it feels like hitting the jackpot. 'Tim' got screwed alright, screwed good.   

 

As I said the whole thing really vexed me, no more so than other peoples reactions, I think you're 100% correct, 'birds of a feather, flock together'..perhaps even broader than them doing the same thing themselves, but just they're basically allergic to any sort of objective moral standards? Certainly the impression I got...     

[cynicist]

It doesn't seem possible for a man to 'friend-zone' a woman, since women usually perceive a lack of sexual attention as automatically insulting and men don't really have anything to gain from a lady they deem unattractive.

 

Part of the reason for this is that women are put on a pedestal in our culture while men are perceived as dysfunctional but useful, so women are trained by their environment to expect this kind of treatment and men are too. I think if the communication in our society changed then the reverse would be possible. (though neither are desirable) The idiotic ideas floating around in our culture around success even cause these men to be 'grateful' for the sad situations they find themselves in, thinking that they are lucky to snag such a prize. It blows my mind.

[MysterionMuffles]

Let me just state again that the friendzone isn't real and here are my more elaborate thoughts on it:

 

Being friends requires being authentic with one another, and if a man or woman is indirectly expressing their affection for the person they're attracted to, and getting frustrated when it's not reciprocated, that's fine. They have every right to feel frustrated.
 

The problem is when that frustration is expressed as resentment and entitlement into romantic activity. "But I did this for them, why don't they like me?!" Well, I would ask, were you direct enough to simply say "I like you, how about you and I make the beast with two backs?"

 

If it comes to this stringing someone along dynamic, each party has the onus to back off from this game. This game of, I will do all these partnerly things for this person without really being their partner in the hopes I will earn partnership--while I will exploit this lovelorn's generousity while I hold myself out for someone better.

 

It's destructive and a very common thing these days. Something about masculinity has been tarnished in this modern world and it's time to reclaim that strength. Likewise, feminity needs to also be redirected and redefined into something more than just resource allocation.

 

So if you're doing everything in your power to earn someone's affection without telling them you have those feelings, the fault is in your inability to be direct. Likewise, if you're stringing someone along with the knowledge that they want you, but are indirect about it--both of you STOP IT! Like, right now!

 

I know that I have been in situations where I've "been friendzoned" by a woman, and have "friendzoned" women myself. We all have. What was really happening was a lack of clear communication stumping our chances of fantasies into a reality.

 

How do you break the cycle? Recognition of how inauthentic and slimy it is to be on either side of the interaction. You doing stuff for someone who just won't appreciate you? Stop being a doormat! You're letting someone you don't even like that much do shit for you? Stop being an emotional gold digger!

[Kevin Beal]

I know that I have been in situations where I've "been friendzoned" by a woman, and have "friendzoned" women myself. We all have.

No no no. Do not speak for me like that.

 

I've read this thread and have not seen a standard for what level of honesty is required that makes guys ending up in the friendzone not friends, and thus the friendzone fake. I'm not even sure why this is a requirement. Unless that requirement is "more honest", in which case, I don't know what that means.

 

The whole point of a friendzone is to turn someone into a friend, when they have different intentions. (i.e. they do not consider themselves friends).

 

The problem is leading people on, giving them just enough of a flirty attitude or whatever to keep their attention and pretending not to notice that this is not typical friend behavior, it's someone who's interested in you romantically. This really does happen, it's not fake.

 

Should people be more direct and honest about what their intentions are if they intend to date you? Yea, probably. I can think of a lot of good reasons for that. But to focus on the person who's been friendzoned, that is to say emotionally manipulated, as equally culpable makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

If I lead someone on, I'd feel horrible about it, and the last thing I would do is try and find reasons to blame them, like they aren't good friends or project onto them my own guilty conscience for emotionally manipulating them.

 

You cannot blame people for believing the things you manipulated them into believing. That's bullshit.

[PatrickC]

Yes, I have a sense in this thread that we are blaming the chaps and giving the ladies very little responsibility. 

 

I certainly agree that a chap is responsible for the relationships and expectations he has with women. He should be open and direct about his intentions as they arise. But I'm not going to let women off that connive to collect as many male friends as they can for their own self aggrandizement. Men to varying degrees (with experience and wisdom probably less so to nil perhaps) will always be susceptible to the charms of certain ladies.

[MysterionMuffles]

LOL alright sorry Kevo.

Yes, I have a sense in this thread that we are blaming the chaps and giving the ladies very little responsibility. 

 

I certainly agree that a chap is responsible for the relationships and expectations he has with women. He should be open and direct about his intentions as they arise. But I'm not going to let women off that connive to collect as many male friends as they can for their own self aggrandizement. Men to varying degrees (with experience and wisdom probably less so to nil perhaps) will always be susceptible to the charms of certain ladies.

 

Which is why I say it is slimy to be the one exploiting the man and using him, much like the way the woman does in Ryan's story.

[Kevin Beal]

LOL alright sorry Kevo.

I don't understand. What was funny about that?

[MysterionMuffles]

I thought I made a valid point, but ruined it a bit with speaking for everyone else. Apparently NOT everybody has had a friendzoning experience. Does that generalization invalidate the rest of my argument?

[Kevin Beal]

I thought I made a valid point, but ruined it a bit with speaking for everyone else. Apparently NOT everybody has had a friendzoning experience. Does that generalization invalidate the rest of my argument?

So your LOL was meant to be some kind of slight at my expense, then? Like some sort of subtle "fuck you". That explains the nickname...

 

First of all, I didn't say that your argument was invalid because of that single comment. My whole post was dismissed by you when you focused on a single comment of mine.

 

I'm not even sure there was an argument there for me to comment on. Is it this?:

P1: guys who are friendzoned expect some sort of reciprocity, and when they don't get it, they get resentful

P2: "the fault is in your inability to be direct"

C1: This is a problem and it is slimy and being a doormat

 

If so, I did comment on that. I did say more than "don't speak for me", right?

 

And it's ironic that you were passive aggressively indirect with me when the virtue you are promoting is being direct with people...

 

If a woman is leading you on and emotionally manipulating you into doing favors for her, she has to be doing something that would subtly (and with plausible deniability) suggest that he'll benefit from continuing to do these things. She is putting the idea in his head that it will lead to something more. It is completely to be expected that someone would feel resentful when it doesn't happen. I feel resentful when people manipulate me into doing things too.

 

Leading someone on is wasting their time and is something to feel resentful about. It is not slimy to feel resentful.

 

I already said this in the post you are suggesting totally ignored the point you were making. You ignored the point I was making.

 

The reason I focused on that particular quote of yours about everyone being culpable in friendzoning and being friendzoned is that it totally minimizes it. Like this is just something that everyone does. No it's not. It is cause for alarm that you would think it was.

 

And where is your remorse for doing something that you yourself say is "slimy"?

 

If someone told me that they did things that were slimy, I would want to see them demonstrate that they had changed and learned from it before taking their advice about it. i.e. You have a very strong incentive to make people who get friendzoned equally culpable, because it makes you less responsible for leading the girls on that you have. Because it's just sort of this dance that people do, or something.

[MysterionMuffles]

So your LOL was meant to be some kind of slight at my expense, then? Like some sort of subtle "fuck you". That explains the nickname...

 

First of all, I didn't say that your argument was invalid because of that single comment. My whole post was dismissed by you when you focused on a single comment of mine.

 

I'm not even sure there was an argument there for me to comment on. Is it this?:

P1: guys who are friendzoned expect some sort of reciprocity, and when they don't get it, they get resentful

P2: "the fault is in your inability to be direct"

C1: This is a problem and it is slimy and being a doormat

 

If so, I did comment on that. I did say more than "don't speak for me", right?

 

And it's ironic that you were passive aggressively indirect with me when the virtue you are promoting is being direct with people...

 

If a woman is leading you on and emotionally manipulating you into doing favors for her, she has to be doing something that would subtly (and with plausible deniability) suggest that he'll benefit from continuing to do these things. She is putting the idea in his head that it will lead to something more. It is completely to be expected that someone would feel resentful when it doesn't happen. I feel resentful when people manipulate me into doing things too.

 

Leading someone on is wasting their time and is something to feel resentful about. It is not slimy to feel resentful.

 

I already said this in the post you are suggesting totally ignored the point you were making. You ignored the point I was making.

 

The reason I focused on that particular quote of yours about everyone being culpable in friendzoning and being friendzoned is that it totally minimizes it. Like this is just something that everyone does. No it's not. It is cause for alarm that you would think it was.

 

And where is your remorse for doing something that you yourself say is "slimy"?

 

If someone told me that they did things that were slimy, I would want to see them demonstrate that they had changed and learned from it before taking their advice about it. i.e. You have a very strong incentive to make people who get friendzoned equally culpable, because it makes you less responsible for leading the girls on that you have. Because it's just sort of this dance that people do, or something.

 

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The LOL wasn't a fuck you to you or an assumption that your response was an invalidation of my argument. The LOL is for recognizing the grave error I made in generalizing as if EVERYBODY has gotten into a friendzone experience when that's obviously not the case. When I asked if my generalization invalidated my argument, it was out of curiousity, not designed to create a false intention on your part. I was just wondering if the generalization did invalidate my argument. That's all. I didn't say that you said my argument was invalid because of the generalization. I was genuinely curious when I asked that.

 

I will accept that women do have the capacity to manipulate a man into doing all these favours for them. Perhaps the degree to which I mentioned that in my post could be extended to emphasize that point. So sure, being direct is a virtue, but that doesn't ensure achieving closure as some men will still get strung along after being given some half ass explanation by a woman for why she wouldn't wanna date him.

I didn't say it was slimy to be resentful. I said it was slimy in how that gets expressed. I did say you're allowed to get frustrated as it's totally reasonable. You can just as easily disengage instead of what many friendzoned men do, myself included, which is to try and discourage the woman from further dating. Hope this clears things up, Kevin. 

 

PS. What nickname makes sense? Why are you attempting an ad hominem attack? I understand the criticism of taking responsibility for the times I've friendzoned a woman. Thanks for pointing out that stating we all have was a way of minimizing the common phenomenon. I'll reflect on the times I've friendzoned a woman and when I have been friendzoned myself, and I'll share what I've figured out in this thread when I get some answers. 

[Kevin Beal]

PS. What nickname makes sense?

The nickname I was referring to was "Kevo"

 

It would make sense that if you were trying to make some slight at my expense that you would use a nickname as a way of putting me down, and talking to me like a child. Like, "hey there little buddy, that's a nice post you got there".

 

It struck me as weird that you would coin a nickname for me since I barely know you and came with what I perceived as a slight.

 

But if I have mistaken your intentions, then I retract my statement.

[Lars]

At any rate, it's important to consider how other people may process what we say regardless of intention. Purposely leaving things ambiguous may be considered passive-aggressive in itself, I'm certainly guilty of that.

[MysterionMuffles]

 

The nickname I was referring to was "Kevo"

 

It would make sense that if you were trying to make some slight at my expense that you would use a nickname as a way of putting me down, and talking to me like a child. Like, "hey there little buddy, that's a nice post you got there".

 

It struck me as weird that you would coin a nickname for me since I barely know you and came with what I perceived as a slight.

 

But if I have mistaken your intentions, then I retract my statement.

 

 

Ooooh! Okay. Yeah sorry for the random nickname and being indirect. I only called you Kevo because I worked with a Kevin we all called Kevo, so I can understand how it was unfounded to place on you. If you don't mind me asking, do you have a history in people belittling you with the same or similar kind of childish names? You don't have to share that here or at all, just PM me about it if you'd like.

 

As for being direct, let me clarify. If I was being direct and living up to that standard, my LOL message should've said, "LOL thanks for the correction, Kevin." I do appreciate it and I'm sorry if it came across as passive aggressive or dismissive of your post.

 

It's pretty easy to misconstrue people's intentions online and I thought the nickname you were referring to was mine; That Popular Anti-Social Guy. I was actually about to go on the assumption that you were attacking my character for having some kind of social ineptness, so even then I knew I would be horribly wrong making it all about me, which is why I stayed open and curious to see which nickname you were really referring to.

 

So are we cool? Can we let this thread continue? I do find it fascinating and your prompting of me to look at my own past experiences of friendzoning women is actually making me curious about my history with it. 

At any rate, it's important to consider how other people may process what we say regardless of intention. Purposely leaving things ambiguous may be considered passive-aggressive in itself, I'm certainly guilty of that.

 

Thanks for your input. This misunderstanding is gonna motivate me to write my posts with more concision so they say what I mean.

[Josh F]

If people were more honest about their intentions then this would be avoided, sure. But how do people end up in the friend zone? I know guys who flirted and did pretty much everything short of saying "hey, I find you attractive and want to go on a date with you" and they still got friend zoned. That is to say it was obvious for everyone to see that they were interested, including the women who continued to accept favors and support from these guys. And instead of shying away, they do just enough to maintain that one sided relationship the way that it is, because it's really nice to have someone want to give you things and listen intently.

 

When a friend zoning happens, it's pretty clear that both parties are responsible for that unfortunate situation. It's usually pretty obvious to me when someone is attracted to me before they ever say anything, and I don't think I'm special in that way.

 

It's easy to say that people should be more direct, but the strategy of getting to know each other like friends and then ask out later actually works out for a lot of people. I'm sure you know a couple like that. If rejection is a big enough negative for you and you don't mind wasting more time, then it's not the worst strategy in the world.

 

It works both ways, but to take the typical example, one reason that women friend zone guys is to have them as a backup in case that the person they are crushing on doesn't want to date them, specifically because they know that friend zoned guy is into them.

 

 

Honestly, I did not really think about that and didn't realize that it was happening in this way.  I had a female friend who I was attracted to when I was younger.  She behaved in the way you described, flirtatious and demanded a lot of my time.  I was friends with her until I finally got up the courage to be direct.  She became my first girlfriend.  Now... my interpretation was that she liked me, but had a cultural expectation that I be more direct before we got romantically involved.  I'm kind of becoming aware, now, of the other interpretation.  That she was trying to just keep my attention by flirting and that she may have consented to going out with me just to maintain this attention.  Our relationship was only 6 months long, and very difficult.  It was on-and-off, with both of us breaking up with each other every couple weeks, only to get back together again.

 

I've also been called flirtatious myself, and my own intentions were often to simply be charming or compelling.  I'm going to think about to what degree I'm attention seeking, because I can't deny that I'm pleased to discover that women are attracted to me.  Since my current relationship this behavior has completely stopped, so its been like 2 years now.  I'm intentionally not flirtatious with women because I think that would be insulting and disrespectful to my girlfriend.   I'll even say in the past I probably led women on, in terms of having a goal of sex and being very careful not explicitly express desire for a long relationship, but maybe let it be implied.  I guess thats kind of the male equivalent... the friends-with-benefits zone.