# alright girls... why do men get friendzoned?



## Christie (Feb 20, 2012)

I can't speak for all women, but here are my reasons for placing a man in the friend zone:

1. I think you're interesting enough to keep around, but I'm not that into you (for any number of reasons).
2. I am into you and I want to see if you have potential for more than friends.
3. There is no interest either way, and it truly is just a friendship.
That's about it.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I heard a lot of people say that the problem is lack of attraction. (she doesn't like you, she's just not that into you, etc) If this were truly the case, then friend-zoning would not be so gender exclusive. There are many girls that are found not attractive by guys, yet there are more guys in the friend-zone then girls. The answer is not as simple as lack of attraction. I think I've stated this once before elsewhere, but I'll state it again.
I believe this issue is deeply related to the social exchange theory; the idea that people have interpersonal relationships in order to satiate their basic human needs. In other words, people put up with each other to "get" something from the interaction. This is not a bad thing, but the relationships and the needs can sometimes be unhealthy. Also, when a person "gets something" from the relationship, it usually comes at the cost of the other. This causes a strain on the relationship if kept imbalanced, but remains healthy if each person "exchanges" who gives and who takes.
Girls have no problem putting guys in the friend-zone because all of their "needs" are being met from the relationship. They take for granted the time and consideration and have no problem keeping them there because it comes at no cost to them, whatsoever. The lack of satisfaction from the guy is not because he is not in a relationship, but rather that he is *in a relationship that is draining him*. The friend-zoning girl is inconsiderate, and when confronted will usually spout off about "her rights" when the issue is really about having healthy relationships with others.
The guys are far from innocent too. Keeping social exchange theory in mind, the guy enters the relationship (friendship) to get something too. To them, it's about the fantasy of possibilities with the girl, and the addictive euphoria that accompanies it. But as is the case with narcotic highs, the old hits just don't cut it anymore, and eventually the guy no longer "gets" what he wanted from the relationship. This is a real problem because the solution is not for the girl to fall in love with him (although the friend-zoned guy thinks it is). See, the friend-zoned guy isn't really in love with the girl, but rather in the fantasy he created about her. A real person cannot compete with this, and even if she tried, she would still be feeding the unrealistic euphoric addiction and she eventually won't cut it for him (as stated previously.)
In both cases (the boy and the girl) each person fails to understand what they are taking from the relationship and the damage that is being done because of it. This is the true source of the problem. People can either mature and own up to this or they can cry about what they deserve or what their rights are.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

I hate the term friendzone as I find it's most commonly used by males who see sex as an entitlement. I also hate it because it instantly devalues anything a woman can offer to a man which is less than sex; it implies that it's somehow bad or wrong to have a platonic relationship with a female. 

Males who can _only_ be friends with women in the off-chance that they might get somewhere with them are immature pricks. Period.

At the end of the day, there is no friendzone, I don't want to date you either because I don't find you attractive and/or I don't think it would work. If you have a problem with it then tough shit.


----------



## Logical Ambivert Feeler (Aug 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> In general, they do. Women's brains in general are smaller and there are more connections between the two sides of the brain.


Oh right in that sense, I thought you meant psychologically


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Logical Ambivert Feeler said:


> Oh right in that sense, I thought you meant psychologically


Psychologically, there's little difference between men and women when it comes to sense.


----------



## Logical Ambivert Feeler (Aug 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Psychologically, there's little difference between men and women when it comes to sense.


Well depends on the personality type I'd say in the type of 'sense' (emotional, rational, logical, common, security etc etc)


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Logical Ambivert Feeler said:


> Well depends on the personality type I'd say in the type of 'sense' (emotional, rational, logical, common, security etc etc)


Most sex differences when it comes to personality type are due to gender roles and societal conditioning.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> I hate the term friendzone as I find it's most commonly used by males who see sex as an entitlement. I also hate it because it instantly devalues anything a woman can offer to a man which is less than sex; it implies that it's somehow bad or wrong to have a platonic relationship with a female.
> 
> Males who can _only_ be friends with women in the off-chance that they might get somewhere with them are immature pricks. Period.
> 
> At the end of the day, there is no friendzone, I don't want to date you either because I don't find you attractive and/or I don't think it would work. If you have a problem with it then tough shit.


Yeah, see my long post. Entitlement works both ways. I'm thinking that there are fewer guys who think that they are entitled to sex and more guys who think that a true friend who cares about them would never say "If you have a problem with that then tough shit."


----------



## Logical Ambivert Feeler (Aug 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Most sex differences when it comes to personality type are due to gender roles and societal conditioning.


I mean a greater proportion of females are F and more men are T, so you would expect women to have more emotional sense and men to have more logical sense in general.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Logical Ambivert Feeler said:


> I mean a greater proportion of females are F and more men are T, so you would expect women to have more emotional sense and men to have more logical sense in general.



Yes, mainly due to gender roles and societal conditioning. Without those, you would expect it to be closer to 50-50.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I honestly never even heard of the FZ until after reading through various blogs, forum posts, and web articles online. The only people who seem get stuck in them are the ones who keep the idea of there even being one alive. In my mind, if someone is not interested, then neither am I, so move on and don't look back. 

It hasn't happened yet, but if they offered genuine friendship, instead of a place among their hordes of admirers, or some other assigned "use", I might just take it. 

Insecurity, self-entitlement, and victimization are huge turn-offs for both sexes.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

marked174 said:


> Girls have no problem putting guys in the friend-zone because all of their "needs" are being met from the relationship. They take for granted the time and consideration and have no problem keeping them their because it comes at no cost to them, whatsoever. The lack of satisfaction from the guy is not because he is not in a relationship, but rather that he is *in a relationship that is draining him*. The friend-zoning girl is inconsiderate, and when confronted will usually spout off about "her rights" when the issue is really about having healthy relationships with others.
> The guys are far from innocent too. Keeping social exchange theory in mind, the guy enters the relationship (friendship) to get something too. To them, it's about the fantasy of possibilities with the girl, and the addictive euphoria that accompanies it. But as is the case with narcotic highs, the old hits just don't cut it anymore, and eventually the guy no longer "gets" what he wanted from the relationship. This is a real problem because the solution is not for the girl to fall in love with him (although the friend-zoned guy thinks it is). See, the friend-zoned guy isn't really in love with the girl, but rather in the fantasy he created about her. A real person cannot compete with this, and even if she tried, she would still be feeding the unrealistic euphoric addiction and she eventually won't cut it for him (as stated previously.)
> In both cases (the boy and the girl) each person fails to understand what they are taking from the relationship and the damage that is being done because of it. This is the true source of the problem. People can either mature and own up to this or they can cry about what they deserve or what their rights are.


I am a heterosexual female and the majority of my girlfriends are lesbians. We are friends and are not looking to date one another. I'm trying to figure out how your theory applies to my situation. There is no way my lesbian friends are keeping me around for "future possibilities" and I highly doubt they would ever say I was draining them. The only needs that are being met is that of friendship. I have quite a few guy friends as well. Hetero and gay. And we really care about each other and not just about the fantasy, nor am I draining them. I think a lot of this may have to do with maturity.


----------



## Logical Ambivert Feeler (Aug 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Yes, mainly due to gender roles and societal conditioning. Without those, you would expect it to be closer to 50-50.


Well due to brain structure, females are generally better at expressing emotion and feelings (they have a larger deep limbic system), also are better communicators than men in general, so I think personality is somewhat predetermined, with women being more Feeling and men more Thinking..ofcourse environment plays a massive part but I think a lot of it is predetermined


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

marked174 said:


> Yeah, see my long post. Entitlement works both ways. I'm thinking that there are fewer guys who think that they are entitled to sex and more guys who think that a true friend who cares about them would never say "If you have a problem with that then tough shit."


You clearly have never had a male try to become friendly with you only to run for the hills as soon as he realizes you aren't the type who can easily be swayed by charm; my tough shit stance only goes out to those who have such a problem with the fact that they ain't getting none from me get in the way of the relationship, the same ones who really aren't worth crying over. If entitlement works both ways, then surely the same males who want me to respect their feelings in the matter should also respect the fact that I have boundaries and that I still wish to be friends. 

And coming from the stance of someone who has had a close friend fall for me and not be able to let it go... then yeah, I would say that sometimes the 'tough shit' stance is actually the kindest.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> I am a heterosexual female and the majority of my girlfriends are lesbians. We are friends and are not looking to date one another. I'm trying to figure out how your theory applies to my situation. There is no way my lesbian friends are keeping me around for "future possibilities" and I highly doubt they would ever say I was draining them. The only needs that are being met is that of friendship. I have quite a few guy friends as well. Hetero and gay. And we really care about each other and not just about the fantasy, nor am I draining them. I think a lot of this may have to do with maturity.


 It sounds like these are pretty healthy relationships. Social exchange theory is about all interpersonal relationships; romantic relationships are just a tiny fraction of it. You "take" from your friends in many ways. When you talk to them about your problems or seek there attention to be on you, or when you ask them to make sacrifices or favors on your behalf. The thing is that in your situation it sounds like they are exchanging the same things with you. This is healthy, and the harmonious flow sustains and maintains healthy relationships. You are absolutely right about the maturity; it's what keeps you and your friends from overstepping boundaries and "taking" to an unhealthy level.


----------



## Sali (Feb 9, 2011)

Because guys have a tendency to treat women like an investment. It's really funny actually. You can't be friend zoned if friendship is what you go in with the expectation of. I have lots of female friends, some are platonic some have turned out to be more, but it was always something that built over time when it turned out to be more, and it most certainly was not what I expected out of the friendship.


----------



## Ramysa (Mar 22, 2012)

MelanieM said:


> Because they are not sexually attracted to you.


 Yup! This is the answer I had in mind too. U see, even if they seam attractive at first (physically) and then I discover there is something I don't like abt their personality, same thing happens ( the friend zone thing). So even attractive men can be friend zoned. It's all abt how a woman perceives u and how much she believes u are fit/unfit for her.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> You clearly have never had a male try to become friendly with you only to run for the hills as soon as he realizes you aren't the type who can easily be swayed by charm; my tough shit stance only goes out to those who have such a problem with the fact that they ain't getting none from me get in the way of the relationship, the same ones who really aren't worth crying over. If entitlement works both ways, then surely the same males who want me to respect their feelings in the matter should also respect the fact that I have boundaries and that I still wish to be friends.
> 
> And coming from the stance of someone who has had a close friend fall for me and not be able to let it go... then yeah, I would say that sometimes the 'tough shit' stance is actually the kindest.


Haha, actually I have had that happen. lol. But I wasn't swayed for more obvious reasons. Again, I don't think that these guys just want sex; that is an oversimplification you use to make demonizing and dismissing them easier.
The "tough shit" stance is cold and unsympathetic. If you are referencing "tough love" then there are better ways to express it. Such ways will communicate that although you do care about the other, you are not going to sacrifice your boundaries.
That being said, you're right that he should respect your boundaries. But I'm not talking to that guy, I'm talking to you. You are responsible for the way you treat others, and not how he does. People would much rather focus on what other people should do (myself included) but "shoulding" all over the place isn't helpful if it is only used as an excuse to ignore one's own responsibilities.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

marked174 said:


> Haha, actually I have had that happen. lol. But I wasn't swayed for more obvious reasons. Again, I don't think that these guys just want sex; that is an oversimplification you use to make demonizing and dismissing them easier.
> The "tough shit" stance is cold and unsympathetic. If you are referencing "tough love" then there are better ways to express it. Such ways will communicate that although you do care about the other, you are not going to sacrifice your boundaries.
> That being said, you're right that he should respect your boundaries. But I'm not talking to that guy, I'm talking to you. You are responsible for the way you treat others, and not how he does. People would much rather focus on what other people should do (myself included) but "shoulding" all over the place isn't helpful if it is only used as an excuse to ignore one's own responsibilities.


I took on the 'tough shit' stance with my friend after months of friendship where it was pretty evident they weren't going to get over me. I guess I realized that continuing the friendship was causing her to hold out false hope; at the time it sucked, for the both of us.

I do agree though, acting like a bitch towards those who cannot help their feelings is a pretty shitty thing to do. I just don't see the point in crying into my pillow at night over people who were only ever interested in the one thing in the first place, hence they feel the need to use terms such as 'friendzoned'.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Ramysa said:


> Yup! This is the answer I had in mind too. U see, even if they seam attractive at first (physically) and then I discover there is something I don't like abt their personality, same thing happens ( the friend zone thing). So even attractive men can be friend zoned. It's all abt how a woman perceives u and how much she believes u are fit/unfit for her.


I think this is the most honest answer as to why people get friend-zoned.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

pinkrasputin said:


> Oh. Actually I haven't beaten you. But my intuition allows me to speak with a wisdom beyond my years or experiences.


Wait. Haven't beaten him because you haven't slept with two women, or haven't slept with two people? :kitteh:


----------



## e92 (Mar 12, 2012)

sparkles said:


> Well, I'll be [email protected] if I go out with someone who tries to take control of me.
> 
> Guys end up in my friendship world if they don't make a move, are not attractive to me, are not available to date, or if I am unavailable myself. If they don't make a move, and they just settle for being my emotional tampon, and I'm not interested in them enough to make a move myself, then this is going to happen.
> 
> If you like someone, make a move. Then you won't end up in the friendzone (keep in mind lots of wimminz don't have a "friendzone"). Or just decide that people can be friends whatever their gender. This gels better for some than for others.


hahah you're funny


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

The last time I was "friendzoned" was over ten years ago when I was a senior in high school. That was also the last time I lacked confidence in my attractiveness or saw a girl I liked as "out of my league". Correlation, causation, or coincidence?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I actually don't think friend zoning is all about sex to be honest, that could be apart of it but I think it's obvious that the bigger picture is the relationship aspect of it. Some people may think that it's all a person wants is sex, but I think it's obvious that the person stuck in the friend zone more likely just wants a deeper relationship that is more significant then just sex. They want their feelings returned in some way. They don't want to feel that they are the only one feeling these romantic feelings towards another. 

I would say if you think they only want sex from you look at how they treat said "friend" versus the other persons they encounter. Usually "friend zoners" get upset because they really like someone and they feel frustrated because they cannot in some way deepen the relationship. They have been giving said friend significant other treatment but they have not reached that actual point where they cross over to more then friends. Usually those who complain about being in the "friend zone" are completely gone over that person. No one would complain about being friend zoned if all they saw from the person was something they could get from any person in their immediate sphere (which is sex).


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I actually don't think friend zoning is all about sex to be honest, that could be apart of it but I think it's obvious that the bigger picture is the relationship aspect of it. Some people may think that it's all a person wants is sex, but I think it's obvious that the person stuck in the friend zone more likely just wants a deeper relationship that is more significant then just sex. They want their feelings returned in some way. They don't want to feel that they are the only one feeling these romantic feelings towards another.
> 
> I would say if you think they only want sex from you look at how they treat said "friend" versus the other persons they encounter. Usually "friend zoners" get upset because they really like someone and they feel frustrated because they cannot in some way deepen the relationship. They have been giving said friend significant other treatment but they have not reached that actual point where they cross over to more then friends. Usually those who complain about being in the "friend zone" are completely gone over that person. No one would complain about being friend zoned if all they saw from the person was something they could get from any person in their immediate sphere (which is sex).


It is irresponsible (IMO) for a woman to reinforce a certain level of closeness and devotion if they have any sense that the other party is acting from unrequited love. I'm very loyal with my friends and we help each other out sometimes, but when it comes to my male friends I have strong boundaries. 

Case in point. I've had a few male friends who ended up crushing on me. Each time they were direct about it, and I could either say hey I like you too, or I could say whoa, slow down there part'ner, I only like you as a friend. If it wasn't mutual I became hyper-aware of my behavior because I wouldn't want to encourage those sorts of feelings. 

But if they weren't honest and direct about it, I'd have seemed like I was leading them on I'm sure - because I wouldn't have paid so much attention to my behavior. I'd have assumed we were on the same page and I could, for example, be kind and enthusiastic without the risk of having it misinterpreted as flirting.

I don't think the women on the other end of these situations are so concerned with thinking that person just wants sex. From my perspective, and this will sound harsh - it wouldn't matter if the guy wanted the deeper lovey dovey stuff of a relationship. Whether it is about desiring a relationship or just desiring sex, it's on the guy to take 100% clear and unambiguous action to communicate that desire. If he has not taken that action clearly enough that even a woman who can't catch hints would *get it*, then the woman doesn't really know where he stands. And she may *unwittingly* continue to engage him in a way that makes the situation worse, if she dips into the gray areas thinking it doesn't matter because she thinks he sees her as a friend.

She has no business engaging that deeper sort of behavior in my opinion (though in my case it was more an issue of whether I needed to tone down traits that tend to attract people) - but it doesn't matter that the guy on the other end wants something sweet. If she isn't seeing him that way then she isn't seeing him that way. And he is putting himself through unnecessary hardship to just keep pining for her and not expressing it in any obvious way. 

So the fact that such a person might think they are "in love" as opposed to just wanting to get into her pants is irrelevant. He still needs to man up, if you will. Just saying. Leave no room for confusion.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

sparkles said:


> If he has not taken that action clearly enough that even a woman who can't catch hints would *get it*, then the woman doesn't really know where he stands. And she may *unwittingly* continue to engage him in a way that makes the situation worse, if she dips into the gray areas thinking it doesn't matter because she thinks he sees her as a friend.


Yeah from my experiences this almost never happens. These "hints" always manifest themselves in obvious ways, way before that even if they are unexpressed they are still quite obviously there. There is always foreshadowing of the interest in more with the person. Which is why I find it preposterous that the person involved doesn't notice said interest. It's much more likely that the person knows and simply is unwilling to confront the situation because they want the best of the situation. Even they will admit this sooner or later to themselves and others. It's the classic case of I saw the signs, but I didn't want to rock the boat. 



> So the fact that such a person might think they are "in love" as opposed to just wanting to get into her pants is irrelevant.


You had me until this line and I completely lost whatever it was you were saying. I thought all of the contention from this thread was that women didn't want to be seen as sex objects and scorned the idea of having to "have sex" with men just to have friends and that all "friend zoners" are just sex obsessed teens that don't deserve a woman's "time of day." Either way my point was that the "friend zone" isn't all about sex. If it were the person in question would be out the door as soon as any exhaustive effort was required of them to receive said sexual encounter. Most of the time when people complain about the friend zone it's because they like the person, invested all of this effort getting to know them, doing things for them and they treat this person as significant to them and yet they are still treated like a sexless entity or like a dog by the person of their affections. People just out for sex _wouldn't care_ because they would have moved on long before that point. The friend zone is pretty much an obvious case of boy/girl next door syndrome rather then a person out for some random hook up. But that's seen to be moot because sex was brought up as a red herring to obfuscate the real issue in an attempt to draw up lines against men and women.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Yeah from my experiences this almost never happens. These "hints" always manifest themselves in obvious ways, way before that even if they are unexpressed they are still quite obviously there.


That is soooo subjective. A hint to you might be a bulldozer to Joseph, and both might go totally past Josephine's awareness. You can't bank on hints for that reason. You have to keep getting more and more direct, or just take direct action from the outset. That is the only guarantee against miscommunication. 

Look at your wording - "these hints manifest themselves" - how about "the guy drops a hint that he sees as obvious." To me that is closer to the reality. Why remove the person doing the action, as you did in your wording? Why not own that you are the doer? That's a sexier position, from a greater space of responsibility. "I want this. I do x to get it." Rather than "X happens and I'm in the general vicinity."


> It's much more likely that the person knows and simply is unwilling to confront the situation because they want the best of the situation.


Maybe I just haven't had that kind of friendzone experience, but it sounds very much like the guy who wants to date the girl is then blaming the girl for not noticing the hints, and to make himself feel better he also assumes she went along with it on purpose. 



> You had me until this line and I completely lost whatever it was you were saying. I thought all of the contention from this thread was that women didn't want to be seen as sex objects and scorned the idea of having to "have sex" with men just to have friends and that all "friend zoners" are just sex obsessed teens that don't deserve a woman's "time of day."


I don't know what the main contention in this thread is about - haven't read all the posts. I can only speak for myself. For me, it doesn't matter whether said person wants to have sex or wants to start a relationship. It also doesn't matter to me that there are women who capitalize on this dynamic - that is really unfortunate and I don't agree with it, but it wouldn't happen if the guys didn't handle themselves in this way.

The reason this topic bothers me is because these guys sound like victims who are at the mercy of other people instead of people who do the hard and scary thing of taking action for what they want. They irritate me because THEY are the ones who aren't making things happen, but they turn around and complain about it and try to make it the girl's fault.

ETA I am sure that there are alternate ways of viewing this stuff. I tend to be a very direct and at-times aggressive person, so I am doing the unfortunate thing of holding others to my own standards. That's not to say it is right or fair, or that other women agree with me. I'm merely explaining why this stuff irritates me, leaving it to others to have their own opinions about it.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

sparkles said:


> That is soooo subjective. A hint to you might be a bulldozer to Joseph, and both might go totally past Josephine's awareness. You can't bank on hints for that reason. You have to keep getting more and more direct, or just take direct action from the outset. That is the only guarantee against miscommunication.


Almost all of these situations I have seen the person becomes bolder and bolder and receives green lights until they ask the big question and then it becomes about maintaining the sanctity of the friendship. This happens with both men and women and both know what's happening. 



> Maybe I just haven't had that kind of friendzone experience, but it sounds very much like the guy who wants to date the girl is then blaming the girl for not noticing the hints, and to make himself feel better he also assumes she went along with it on purpose.


It's not about gender. "The my sex is right" defense is useless here and is completely diverting from the real issue at hand here which is the user/abuser - usee' relationship. 



> this topic bothers me is because these guys sound like victims who are at the mercy of other people instead of people who do the hard and scary thing of taking action for what they want. They irritate me because THEY are the ones who aren't making things happen, but they turn around and complain about it and try to make it the girl's fault.


It's not even this simple. The gender here is clouding this response. It's not about men or women. It's not about sex. It's about leading a person on. As simple as that.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> It's not about gender. "The my sex is right" defense is useless here and is completely diverting from the real issue at hand here which is the user/abuser - usee' relationship.


So change out the gender pronouns. My attitude is the same whether we are talking about a guy who won't make a move or a woman. The gender is irrelevant to me, so your argument is invalid. Because of societal expectations, the guy is often expected to pursue, so the guy may be in this position more often, but my attitude applies for the reverse scenario also.



> Almost all of these situations I have seen the person becomes bolder and bolder and receives green lights until they ask the big question and then it becomes about maintaining the sanctity of the friendship.


Whether talking about male or female, the person who takes action and doesn't get what they want can choose to move on. It is up to them if they continue to put themselves through that. It is also their responsibility to STOP giving extra time, attention, favors, etc. if they don't like the status of things. You can't have an abuser or a user without a person who goes along with it. 

My point for the argument is that it is up to that person to not go along with things, rather than accept them on the surface but also complain about them.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

sparkles said:


> My point for the argument is that it is up to that person to not go along with things, rather than accept them on the surface but also complain about them.


Your not getting the point. The "complaining" is retro active, meaning it happens _after_ the received injury. When the friend zoners complain that is what they are complaining about. They are complaining because this person put them threw this, encouraged them, gave them a possibility of hope and then later turned around and said lets just be friends. Again in your response there is _no_ acknowledgement of the actions of the other person who was complicit in creating this issue. It's obvious that there is a two party system here. A person wouldn't complain about the ailments if the originator hadn't caused them. It's not a case of a victimless crime.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Arrow said:


> A person wouldn't complain about the ailments if the originator hadn't caused them. It's not a case of a victimless crime.


What in the ...?

So Person A being oblivious to Person B's advances past friendship is causing Person B to be a victim of Person A? Why, again, does the so-called "friend zone" seem to need some nefarious intent on the part of the person who is either romantically or sexually disinterested in the other person?


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Your not getting the point. The "complaining" is retro active, meaning it happens _after_ the received injury. When the friend zoners complain that is what they are complaining about. They are complaining because this person put them threw this, encouraged them, gave them a possibility of hope and then later turned around and said lets just be friends. Again in your response there is _no_ acknowledgement of the actions of the other person who was complicit in creating this issue. It's obvious that there is a two party system here. A person wouldn't complain about the ailments if the originator hadn't caused them. It's not a case of a victimless crime.


I think sometimes the complaining starts after the attempt to alter the nature of the relationship but sometimes the complaints come after the INITIAL attempt (which is often not very direct or obvious), which does not work, so then the person who still wants the relationship stays around that other person - but complains that things aren't as they'd like while doing nothing obvious to change it. 

If you hope for a relationship, don't just do stuff to try and win that person over. Tell them or show them (boldly and obviously) your interest. Otherwise it sounds like you see it as making emotional deposits, which you should be able to withdraw by getting a relationship. Doesn't work that way. 

That's another thing that irks me about it -the resentment. The person who doesn't get a relationship has all this resentment toward the one who didn't accept (or notice) their advances. Why not just try to escalate very early on instead of trying to win them with favors. Trying to win them with favors is like trying to buy your date (makes you look like you don't think you can get a relationship based on your personality). Replace that mentality with healthy self-esteem and confidence and you'll fare much better.

My point, again, is that the primary responsibility here is on the person who is interested in someone. They need to make a move, and not by trying to imply their interest or trying to bend over backwards to do every little thing for that other person. They need to step up and be clear about it. Otherwise, people will do what you allow them to do. It isn't on the other party, even if they take advantage - because it is on you to state your intentions in the beginning instead of ... whatever that is. 

If someone did that to me, hung around and pounced for my every whim and then tried to initiate a relationship and I wasn't attracted, if they didn't accept my "no thanks" I would see them as entitled - like they believe I OWE them a "yes" because after all, "look at all they have done for me" . I'm not attracted to people who approach life that way. I'm attracted to people who go after what they want, in a clear way, instead of trying to win points or make me feel guilty if I say no thanks because they feel like I am indebted to them over all those emotional "deposits." 

(Of course, it is a moot point because I don't really have one-sided friendships like that or cross those kinds of lines. But if I did so accidentally or something, and that happened, I'd be very annoyed at the attitude behind it.)

If I say no, I don't want to date you - I haven't caused you injury or ailments. I have stated my preference. If you see it as I caused your injury, then you don't accept responsibility for your own emotions. You put that responsibility on other people, and that leads to exactly this sort of victim/martyr mindset that I find so unattractive. You can get your underoos in a bunch over that rejection, or you can say to yourself, her loss, and move on.

*TL; DR* The problem here is that the stereotypical friendzone person is being passive instead of assertive. If they were assertive from the outset this wouldn't be such an issue. Likewise, if they accept responsibility for their results instead of acting like they are at the mercy of outside circumstances, they wouldn't suffer so much. When I say I am not attracted to someone I am certainly not injuring them. You give people too much power over you if you see it that way. My two cents.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Why, again, does the so-called "friend zone" seem to need some nefarious intent on the part of the person who is either romantically or sexually disinterested in the other person?


Because the person was not clear about their disinterest. If the person continues to give positive feedback towards the person they are essentially asking for the positive behavior to continue because they are not telling the secondary party that they are not interested. That's where the "nefarious intent" comes from because they are not expressing disinterest or stopping the attentions of the intended.


sparkles said:


> (Of course, it is a moot point because *I don't really have one-sided friendships like that or cross those kinds of lines*. But if I did so accidentally or something, and that happened, I'd be very annoyed at the attitude behind it.)




I'm not sure if I even understand what we are debating about. Obviously I am discussing persons who do cross those lines and know where they stand and continue to act the way in which they are taking advantage of the person in the relationship that are interested in them as more then a friend and they know it. If you don't do that - great, amazing, kudos. However there very much are people who _do_ commit these actions and those are the situations which I have been discussing and yes those persons who act that way do hold a part in the way those relationships unfold. And finally yes they are users. It's as simple as that. 

Ultimately we are talking about the same thing, people who aren't being direct. The person who is using the other person by not being direct about their intentions of not being attracted to another friend who feels more and does everything for them is just as bad (if not worse) then the person who chooses not to say anything and hopes that the person will see them as a viable dating entity. Accepting responsibility for your actions and your placement goes both ways with both partners. 




> The problem here is that the stereotypical friendzone person is being passive instead of assertive.



The problem is a lack of communication. That happens towards both parties. One isn't being clear that they don't see the other as more then a lap dog friend and the other isn't being as clear in declaring a romantic interest. It's nowhere near as one sided as you are claiming it to be.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Because the person was not clear about their disinterest. If the person continues to give positive feedback towards the person they are essentially asking for the positive behavior to continue because they are not telling the secondary party that they are not interested. That's where the "nefarious intent" comes from because they are not expressing disinterest or stopping the attentions of the intended.


I give positive attention to friends. That does not mean I want to date them. If they ask me out and I'm not interested, I say no, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop being friendly if they still want to be my friend. Which means they will still get "positive attention" as I'm not in the habit of giving negative attention to my friends.

The problem is one of communication, and miscommunication. You expect the friend to stop hanging out altogether, and the friend may believe that the interested party is able to put those feelings behind them and continue the friendship.

Meh. So complicated. I'm glad I haven't had to deal with this directly, and I'm starting to understand those people who believe men and women can't be friends. Oy.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Because the person was not clear about their disinterest. If the person continues to give positive feedback towards the person they are essentially asking for the positive behavior to continue because they are not telling the secondary party that they are not interested. That's where the "nefarious intent" comes from because they are not expressing disinterest or stopping the attentions of the intended.


By this same token of logic, I am then at fault for the stalker I had who I had to file a restraining order against. Being nice to someone does not indicate romantic interest; at the least it indicates someone attempting to be socially pleasant and outwardly friendly. Reading more into someone being pleasant to you is your own fault, and not the fault of the person being pleasant.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> By this same token of logic, I am then at fault for the stalker I had who I had to file a restraining order against.


Wow. Way to stretch and also to take the conversation completely out of context. 



> Being nice to someone does not indicate romantic interest


Who said that it did? I am talking about occasions in which the person explicitly contacts the other one and asks for attention that is intimate and personal in nature and then says they just want to be friends. There is a clash of logic here and a giving of mixed signals. They are asking for behavior from a significant other, yet saying they only want platonic friendship and then they express that they never gave those signals in the first place. That's where the "friend zone" pops up. When people feel that they have been acting or giving significant other roles but are really just "friends" even though their relationship is deeper then friendship. 



> at the least it indicates someone attempting to be socially pleasant and outwardly friendly.


It indicates nothing of the sort. You jumped to the conclusion and saw it that way for whatever odd reason. 



> Reading more into someone being pleasant to you is your own fault, and not the fault of the person being pleasant.


Again who said this? More assumptions.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I'm not sure if I even understand what we are debating about.


Ad hominem much? (I think you meant to type "I'm not sure if *you* even understand what we are debating about." If you typed this as you intended to, then I retract my ad hominem comment. 

Anyway. The thread is about why men get friendzoned - not why those men have the right to complain about the women who don't see them in a dating capacity. 

I stick by my point that it is the responsibility of the interested party to express that interest clearly. If the other person takes advantage, they are implicitly agreeing to that treatment. Can't have an abuser without a victim. Can't be a victim if you refuse to have that mindset.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Arrow - 

As I have expressed previously to others in this very thread, the definition that you have of the "friend zone" is ultimately too limiting when trying to explain the phenomenon as experienced and expressed by many people. That said, I didn't stretch the conversation "completely out of context." The logic I used was an extrapolation, yes, but it isn't entirely out of context of the conversation or what I experienced with my stalker.

That said, once more, your definition of the "friend zone" is incorrect by its absolute limitation of the term and twisting it to mean one thing that it doesn't mean to everyone who views themselves as "in the friend zone."


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

sparkles said:


> Ad hominem much? (I think you meant to type "I'm not sure if *you* even understand what we are debating about." If you typed this as you intended to, then I retract my ad hominem comment.


You're projecting. I wrote exactly what I felt. I don't know what we are arguing about because we are in alignment with feelings about people who don't make their intentions clear. The only difference is your focus on the silent giver, and mine on the silent taker. 



koalaroo said:


> @_Arrow_ -
> That said, I didn't stretch the conversation "completely out of context." The logic I used was an extrapolation, yes, but it isn't entirely out of context of the conversation or what I experienced with my stalker.


Your first reaction to my statement couldn't have been more biased if you had expressed "what about rapists". If the first thing you wanted to type in response to what I wrote was "stalkers!" then that pretty much sums it all up. Nowhere in my post did I express anything about stalkers or overbearing men who aim to make women uncomfortable, but you chose to see it that way. Yes it was out of context of what I personally wrote and a caricature of my words as it had nothing to do with what I personally expressed with no correlation to the behavior you latched onto it.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Arrow_ - 

Pointing out a flaw in logical reasoning is not a personal attack on you. It was an extrapolation but not out of context because the same line or flow of reasoning could be used to blame someone who had been in my situation (being nice to someone who ended up stalking me); it has nothing to do with me being biased and misconstruing your post -- it has everything to do with checking logic and logical consistency. 

My first reaction to your comments in general was NOT "stalkers!" and "rapists!" Ultimately, I did not bother to post until I felt the reasoning was out-of-line and could be used inappropriately.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Mountainshepherd said:


> Ah, small hints aren't action, they are asking someone else to take the weight of action upon themselves. It is only truly rejection if you are direct, if you are indirect its a self fulfilling prophecy. A thousand small hints can be missed or misinterpreted in a thousand small ways. It takes very little courage to hint and leave the weight of action on another, it is not the same rejection as those who put themselves out there directly and face the consequences directly.
> 
> I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree, if you do nothing but hint and the person does not respond to your hints you have not been rejected. You have received exactly what you risked of yourself, nothing.
> 
> By being direct I don't mean out and out confessing romantic feelings for someone, I mean taking positive initiative to further your own goals. A thousand hints on their own are just hints, but a thousand hints well crafted by a woman with confidence and the boldness to play the game to win, that is also direct.


well, i would have to disagree. it's still an emotional, psychological rejection; an unmutuality. i might tell a guy i like him, but not ask him out, for example. rejection is just a lack of reciprocation to me.

if you let your feelings be known without chasing someone down rampantly you are still risking something. it can be very embarrassing to know someone doesn't like you back even if you haven't asked them out yet. besides... you have to know someone likes you back before you can go out, right?

i don't find it courageous to have someone 'chase' me. i actually find it extremely aggressive and intimidating. i prefer someone to just tell me they like me without pushing it too much... i had a really negative experience with an immature ExTJ recently due to his relentless romantic pursuit of me...

besides, many guys in the "friend zone" never actually make a move on the girl - which, i believe, was the scenario in the original movie "Just Friends" at the beginning but i can't be sure.

also, when i say hints, i do mean hints that are meant to make a point and to get the other's attention in some way, to provoke a reaction.


----------



## Rinori (Apr 8, 2012)

I have no response for this cause I cant understand it myself I have seen and experience cases where a girl friendzones a guy and then later on in life when they have (in their own words) "matured" they look for a relationship with that same guy who they friendzoned.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

Reicheru said:


> well, i would have to disagree. it's still an emotional, psychological rejection; an unmutuality. i might tell a guy i like him, but not ask him out, for example. rejection is just a lack of reciprocation to me.
> 
> if you let your feelings be known without chasing someone down rampantly you are still risking something. it can be very embarrassing to know someone doesn't like you back even if you haven't asked them out yet. besides... you have to know someone likes you back before you can go out, right?
> 
> ...


I agree with you that they are similar, but it is a matter of scale.

You are still asking someone else to take responsibility for your desires. I don't doubt that it hurts to feel rejected when you hint, but it isn't the same as being rejected when you took your needs upon yourself and faced them directly.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

For me it is because I'm not sexually attracted to the person.


----------



## Nymma (Apr 24, 2010)

...because some of us aren't looking for romantic relationships. Some of us get our sense of meaning somewhere else than through a SO. Why must everyone assume that every being on earth is living for and/or need love? It gets tiring to get asked by friends/acquitances/family: "Are you seeing someone/who you're dating?" and being told "Awww...well don't worry, you'll eventually find someone!" in a sickeningly sympathethizing tone when the thought of relationships seldom enters your mind. It's about time people stop universalizing/projecting THEIR needs(other than water, food and health). "Needs" are nothing else than errors of perception that get deeply ingrained in you and it's depressing to see fellow females measure the life fulfillement of each other by relationships or thinking that healthy persons should have lovers/tons of friends/etc. Aren't we allowed as individuals to direct our priorities elsewhere? I mean, really...


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

e92 said:


> does it have anything to do with physical attractiveness or overall inadequacy to protect you, and take control of you and your decisions?


That is the weirdest question I've heard all day. None of the above have anything to do with being friend zoned in any situation I've heard of or experienced.

I friend zone men because: I'm not emotionally or hormonally attracted to them, I enjoy our friendship and want to keep them in my life, I'm in a happy relationship, or they're just not the type of person I'm looking for at the time. I don't understand this male complex that if a woman refuses them sex, there must be something wrong with either them or the woman. Can't you just accept that sometimes people just don't want to have sex with you?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Rinori said:


> I have no response for this cause I cant understand it myself I have seen and experience cases where a girl friendzones a guy and then later on in life when they have (in their own words) "matured" they look for a relationship with that same guy who they friendzoned.


Odd in't? 



devoid said:


> I don't understand this male complex that if a woman refuses them sex, there must be something wrong with either them or the woman. Can't you just accept that sometimes people just don't want to have sex with you?


Myth #1: All male friend zoners want from a woman is their vagina. 

I wonder how many times that's been said in this thread? It's so weird to hear this mostly because there seems to be this recurring theme that all a man wants from a woman is sex, even though that was never said in the first place. It was construed by certain readers and then made fact and became the entire tent pole for the duration of the conversation. Who said that all men only see women as sexual entities? And more importantly why do women believe it?


----------



## pretty.Odd (Oct 7, 2010)

The question kind of annoys me a bit because girls can get "friendzoned" (which is a weird term in itself) too!


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Odd in't?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry for the generalization. Let me rephrase: Why do men seem to think that if a woman refuses them a *relationship*, there must be something wrong with either them or the woman? Can't you just accept that sometimes people just don't want to have a *relationship *with you?


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

That's just general insecurity.


----------



## jessaywhat (Sep 10, 2011)

i took her to the movies, i sprinkled roses from her car to her bed, i cooked us a nice dinner.. and she hasn't called me back. i'm sorry, i thought i was being A NICE GUY!

lol sorry, inside joke between me and my cousin. but honestly, i usually find that guys who get friendzoned usually have similar qualities. e.g. lack of confidence, thinks he's the nicest guy that's been screwed over again and again and talks about how he never has any luck with the girlies. nobody wants to hear that, especially other girls! that's going to make girls give you advice, not a date..


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

jessaywhat said:


> i took her to the movies, i sprinkled roses from her car to her bed, i cooked us a nice dinner.. and she hasn't called me back. i'm sorry, i thought i was being A NICE GUY!
> 
> lol sorry, inside joke between me and my cousin. but honestly, i usually find that guys who get friendzoned usually have similar qualities. e.g. lack of confidence, thinks he's the nicest guy that's been screwed over again and again and talks about how he never has any luck with the girlies. nobody wants to hear that, especially other girls! that's going to make girls give you advice, not a date..


Oh god, this! This is so true! So many guys complain about this, how they think they're "too nice" and that girls are "taking advantage of them" by going out on a date and then saying they don't want to go out anymore. I've even had men say to my face that they think I'm being unreasonable for not wanting to date them! As if it's some sort of debate, whether or not I should be with them. Then they start whining, "Come ooonnn, why not? Don't you like me? What do I have to do?" Maybe they should stop trying so hard to force people to go out with them, and actually work on finding someone who wants to be with them. It's not like the first date you go on has to be true love.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Friend-zoning too often "works" in the sense of women making up their minds prematurely and being closed-minded. As MTV's "Friendzone" demonstrates, feelings can and do change within ongoing connections of any kind. In the context of this discussion, the judgment often is kept hidden, despite the possibly fair expectation by the man that no final judgment has been made. It's possible that women think more long-term about potential relationships than men and therefore see dealbreakers more clearly and don't realize male lack of foresight. ("You didn't realize that our difference in religious beliefs is a dealbreaker and that's why I'm unwilling to be more than friends?")

Other thoughts I have after finally reading the entire thread:
Yes, intimacy can lead to romantic feelings, and as an NF, I believe it's common among those of my kind.
Good looks often can keep the door propped open.
Many of the men willing to provide women with the depth of friendship that women often expect from friends are romantics (again, often NFs), but typically the less successful or less attractive among those men have more time to be such friends with women.


----------



## Issmene (Jun 8, 2012)

The friendzone is bullshit, what these people are experiencing is unrequited love/attraction. Period. And everyone has different reasons for that.



> My friendship is not a crappy consolation prize that you’re left with if I deny you a sexual relationship– and my body is not your reward for good behavior. - Taylor Callobre (The "Good Guy" Myth)


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

If a great girl 'friendzones' you...

...doesn't that mean you have a great friend?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

DemonD said:


> If a great girl 'friendzones' you...
> 
> ...doesn't that mean you have a great friend?


Not necessarily. It could just as easily mean that the girl wants you to be her man servant. Ultimately you have to decide what relationship you want to continue having with her. 

Best regards.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Arrow said:


> Not necessarily. It could just as easily mean that the girl wants you to be her man servant. Ultimately you have to decide what relationship you want to continue having with her.
> 
> Best regards.


That doesn't sound like a great girl, but I get your point.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Here are some reasons why males that are attracted to me go in the "friend zone" or get ignored completely.

1. I'm simply do not reciprocate the attraction.
2. You try too hard to get my attention. This puts me off.
3. I know that you're attracted to me. Now, ok this might sound childish, I like to know a man fancies me, but I hate being told that I am pretty, I am intelligent, I am this,that and the other in day to day conversations. This is creepy. 
4. You have low or no self esteem. 
5. I find you boring. 
6. You feel like I should go out with you, and keep persisting when I say no. 
7. You're looking for a rebound.
8. You're too nice. 

I'm sure there are more, but even men that I find physically attractive can do this and I will still not go out with them.


----------



## coquelicot (Jun 8, 2012)

Well, if you get 'friendzoned' it means that the girl thinks you are a nice guy but for some _personal_ reason she doesn't see you as a mate. She will consider going out with you, give you a chance, but that's probably all you'll get. And since that reason is personal, nobody can give you an absolute rule on why that happens. Just keep in mind that if a girl _really_ wants to be with you, she will most likely_ do_ something about it. If not, it doesn't mean you did something wrong, her intuition probably told her that you are not a good match.

Personally, I will friendzone a guy that I do not find physically attractive, simple and shallow as that. 
Else, one who is way too emotional/pushy/controlling, or if I judge that his personality is unappealing to my tastes, no matter how "hot" he may be. What's more, if he's too open with his feelings I get suspicious of his motives and somewhat apprehensive, so I will most likely avoid him. If he tries to control me and my decisions I will loose interest. If he reveals his insecurities I'll find it attractive. If he plays the mysterious, hard-to-get game I'm his. But that's just me, and I'm way too quirky to be giving advice on such stuff.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

DemonD said:


> If a great girl 'friendzones' you...
> 
> ...doesn't that mean you have a great friend?


"But...but...but..but...that means that you can't have sex with her! *sobs" Why else would you be friends with a woman?"

Most of the men who believe in the friendzone crap don't consider women to be suitable as friends, they usually see them only as suitable for having sex with.


----------

