# Friendzone vs Fuckzone



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Nobody is claiming that men aren't allowed to be upset when a woman rejects them, what we complain about it the way they go about announcing their intentions, and subsequently, the way they deal with rejection. 

Instead of saying 'hey, friend of mine, I like you' or 'hey mutual acquaintance, wanna get jiggy?' they confer all responsibility onto the woman to realize a) the friend has feelings for them, and b) Nice Guy (TM) behavior - and that alone - is the epitome of what they find attractive. Basically, they just expect the object of their desires to fall into their laps, with no real risk or consideration on their part.

In truth, most women are just as oblivious as men when it comes to realizing someone has feelings for them - yes, you do have to literally spell it out. Furthermore, just as a men isn't likely to be interested in a girl who _just_ agrees with them all the time, _just_ buys them nice things, and _just_ is a good listener, most women really aren't at all interested in those traits alone, nor are they exceptionally rare to find in people. In truth, what they like is *hugely* variable - one girl might like someone she can have deep discussions with, another one who makes her laugh. To distill your desire's interests into a one size-fits-all list of Nice Guy (TM) traits is extremely superficial of you, and furthermore, shows you don't actually understand the first thing about her. In which case, why the fuck should she date you anyway?

Of course, it can be very difficult to express your feeling to someone - I understand plenty of people don't do so out of fear of rejection. That is completely understandable, however, it's still not an excuse to transfer all responsibility onto someone else simply because they don't like you back - 'shit or get off the pot' is the technical term I believe. 

I've always said saying 'I've been friendzoned' when a girl rejects you is like saying 'I've been poorzoned' when you lose the lottery. It's an attitude which reeks of 'this sex/relationship/money has stolen from me' simply because you've wrongly assumed behavior X (being nice to her/buying a lottery ticket) guarantees you what you want. Er... no. You haven't lost anything at all as you are in the same position as you were before. 

Of course, you can still be _disappointed_ that you 'lost', but that's a completely different thing to behaving as though women/the national lottery are conspiring against you.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> Furthermore, just as a men isn't likely to be interested in a girl who _just_ agrees with them all the time, _just_ buys them nice things, and _just_ is a good listener, most women really aren't at all interested in those traits alone, nor are the exceptional rare to find in people. In truth, what they like is *hugely* variable - one girl might like someone she can have deep discussions with, another one who makes her laugh. To distill your desire's interests into a one size-fits-all list of Nice Guy (TM) traits is extremely superficial of you, and furthermore, shows you don't actually understand the first thing about her. In which case, why the fuck should she date you anyway?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Both need to grow the fuck up and look for someone else.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> Nobody is claiming that men aren't allowed to be upset when a woman rejects them,


Not at all true. "Why are you upset? You should be glad you have a friend!" arguments abound here. Also, I'm interested to know how you would define upset, because any outward indicator that a guy is upset by this is quickly labeled as "whining".



Falling Leaves said:


> what we complain about is the way they go about announcing their intentions, and subsequently, the way they deal with rejection.


 Case in point.



Falling Leaves said:


> Instead of saying 'hey, friend of mine, I like you' or 'hey mutual acquaintance, wanna get jiggy?' they confer all responsibility onto the woman to realize a) the friend has feelings for them, and b) Nice Guy (TM) behavior - and that alone - is the epitome of what they find attractive. Basically, they just expect the object of their desires to fall into their laps, with no real risk or consideration on their part.


Literally no one has done this on this forum. There is a 100% consensus that the one with feelings has the responsibility to convey those feelings. The argument otherwise is a straw man to make you feel better.



Falling Leaves said:


> In truth, most women are just as oblivious as men when it comes to realizing someone has feelings for them - yes, you do have to literally spell it out. Furthermore, just as a men isn't likely to be interested in a girl who _just_ agrees with them all the time, _just_ buys them nice things, and _just_ is a good listener, most women really aren't at all interested in those traits alone, nor are they exceptionally rare to find in people.


 Your privilege is showing. The vast majority of western men would chop off their left arm just to find a woman who is capable of being agreeable, generous, and a listener.



Falling Leaves said:


> In truth, what they like is *hugely* variable - one girl might like someone she can have deep discussions with, another one who makes her laugh. To distill your desire's interests into a one size-fits-all list of Nice Guy (TM) traits is extremely superficial of you, and furthermore, shows you don't actually understand the first thing about her. In which case, why the fuck should she date you anyway?


 The common problem in this case is that the women in question are often dishonest about what they want. She will say she wants someone who is compassionate when she actually likes guys who make her laugh. The poor friendzoned guy then says "Well I'm being as compassionate as I can. Why am I not good enough?" The problem in many instances is that these guys believe those women when they open their mouths when they actually shouldn't (IMO, a women/man who is dishonest probably doesn't deserve you in the first place, but oh well).


Falling Leaves said:


> Of course, it can be very difficult to express your feelings to someone - I understand plenty of people don't do so out of fear of rejection. That is completely understandable, however, it's still not an excuse to transfer all responsibility onto someone else simply because they don't like you back - 'shit or get off the pot' is the technical term I believe.


Again, literally no one argues with this. The closest thing you'll find is the criticism that cultural gender roles demand that the male initiates in relationships, which is a clear double standard. In fact, you can easily find lots of complaints by women that men won't ask them out. https://www.google.com/#q=why+won't+he+ask+me+out 
Sounds like a whole lot of entitlement to me. Perhaps you should start telling all of them to shit or get off the pot; they're the ones hogging the bathroom. 


Falling Leaves said:


> I've always said saying 'I've been friendzoned' when a girl rejects you is like saying 'I've been poorzoned' when you lose the lottery. It's an attitude which reeks of 'this sex/relationship/money has stolen from me' simply because you've wrongly assumed behavior X (being nice to her/buying a lottery ticket) guarantees you what you want. Er... no. You haven't lost anything at all as you are in the same position as you were before.


 A better analogy would be complaining that you didn't receive a paycheck after weeks of work. 

Poorzone guy: Hey, where's my paycheck?

Jerk-of-a-guy Boss: What are you talking about? You don't work here.

Poorzone guy: I've been busting my ass all month! You've given me specific jobs, even told me to pick up the pace a few times!

Jerk-of-a-guy Boss: Sorry, HR doesn't have a copy of your hiring offer. It's not my responsibility to give everyone a job just because they feel like they deserve one.

Poorzone guy: You told me specifically that you wanted a guy like me, we even shook hands!

Jerk-of-a-guy Boss: I do want I guy like you, but that doesn't mean I owe you a paycheck. I'm not some machine you put hard-work coins into until paychecks come out! I'm a real person! Besides, you should be grateful that I let you hang around here; you get a place to stay, a community, and the satisfaction of working hard. You are so entitled when you should be thanking me!

Poorzone guy: I can't believe this, all bourgeois employers are assholes.

Jerk-of-a-guy Boss: Now you sound like a beta proletariat. I'd love to keep this conversation going, but you have a lot of work to do! Remember, working for me is like winning the lottery, because I'm so awesome and you suck.



Falling Leaves said:


> Of course, you can still be _disappointed_ that you 'lost', but that's a completely different thing to behaving as though women/the national lottery are conspiring against you.


The arrogance is stifling.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

marked174 said:


> The common problem in this case is that the women in question are often dishonest about what they want. She will say she wants someone who is compassionate when she actually likes guys who make her laugh. The poor friendzoned guy then says "Well I'm being as compassionate as I can. Why am I not good enough?" The problem in many instances is that these guys believe those women when they open their mouths when they actually shouldn't (IMO, a women/man who is dishonest probably doesn't deserve you in the first place, but oh well).


----------



## Husgark (Nov 14, 2012)

Why are there suddenly so many "friendzone" threads? They usually all boil down to the ruthless beating of mangled dead horses.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

marked174 said:


> Not at all true. "Why are you upset? You should be glad you have a friend!" arguments abound here. Also, I'm interested to know how you would define upset, because any outward indicator that a guy is upset by this is quickly labeled as "whining".


'She rejected me, and to be honest I'm really hurt by that, still, I'm not going to confer responsibility onto her for not realizing my feelings/not finding what I offer attractive/etc'. That's the real flagstone difference - be as upset as you want, just don't turn it into a pity party whereby the big nasty friend of yours has been so callous as to 'not like you back' or whatever. At the end of the day, your feelings (be it romantic, sexual, or both) most certainly aren't her responsibility. 



> Literally no one has done this on this forum. There is a 100% consensus that the one with feelings has the responsibility to convey those feelings. The argument otherwise is a straw man to make you feel better.


Who said I was only speaking about this forum? I certainly didn't. 



> Your privilege is showing. *The vast majority of western men *would chop off their left arm just to find a woman who is capable of being agreeable, generous, and a listener.


And you think you can dictate their preferences because...? 



> The common problem in this case is that the women in question are often dishonest about what they want. She will say she wants someone who is compassionate when she actually likes guys who make her laugh. The poor friendzoned guy then says "Well I'm being as compassionate as I can. Why am I not good enough?" The problem in many instances is that these guys believe those women when they open their mouths when they actually shouldn't (IMO, a women/man who is dishonest probably doesn't deserve you in the first place, but oh well).


There is a difference between asserting yourself as compassionate and _actually_ being compassionate, you know. Furthermore, looking at it in terms of 'she said she likes single trait and I have single trait, therefore, she must like me' is such a painfully naive stance to take. 

In truth, people like a mixing pot of factors, some which they are aware of, some which they aren't. Nobody actually says 'aha! That person is making a conscious effort to exhibit a trait I mentioned liking 2 months ago - now, I must date them!' 

If anybody sincerely believes what you described, more fool them I say. 



> Again, literally no one argues with this. The closest thing you'll find is the criticism that cultural gender roles demand that the male initiates in relationships, which is a clear double standard. In fact, you can easily find lots of complaints by women that men won't ask them out. https://www.google.com/#q=why+won't+he+ask+me+out
> Sounds like a whole lot of entitlement to me. Perhaps you should start telling all of them to shit or get off the pot; they're the ones hogging the bathroom.


I don't see what 'men are generally expected to initiate relationships' has to do with my statement of 'if you like someone, either tell them how you feel or stop complaining about them not liking you back (regardless of your gender)'. To be honest, it seems like a non-sequitur. 



> A better analogy would be complaining that you didn't receive a paycheck after weeks of work.
> 
> Poorzone guy: Hey, where's my paycheck?
> 
> ...


...except when you are employed by someone, there is a contractual agreement that if you do X, you'll get paid - in this instance, you have a justification for feeling cheated as someone hasn't met their end of the bargain. This is something which was explicitly agreed in writing _before_ you undertook the work. 

In terms of Nice Guy (TM) stuff, it's not like the girl agrees that 'okay, if you are nice to me for 6 months, I will sleep with/date you'. She hasn't failed to meet her side of the deal simply because there was never a deal to begin with - just as there is no 'deal' with the national lottery saying if you buy X amount of tickets, you will win a cash prize. 

...actually, a better analogy would be simply turning up at a workplace, working for X-amount of time, and then demanding that you are paid for what you've done. In which case, the boss would be quite right to tell you to fuck off. 

To be honest, if you sincerely take such an analogy as reasonable, that says far more about you than anything else. It's this kind of behavior I'm speaking about - mentally calculating time spent together, times you listened to them, things you've bought them, etc. and totting up a mental 'debt', whereby if she doesn't sleep with/date you, then you've somehow been cheated. The term 'false sense of entitlement' springs to mind - and if you honestly believe doing these things in any way, shape or form means you deserve anything from anybody, then I have no more to say to you (other than 'grow up' of course). 



> The arrogance is stifling.


Now now, ad hominem attacks simply aren't nice :tongue:


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> 'She rejected me, and to be honest I'm really hurt by that, still, I'm not going to confer responsibility onto her for not realizing my feelings/not finding what I offer attractive/etc'. That's the real flagstone difference - be as upset as you want, just don't turn it into a pity party whereby the big nasty friend of yours has been so callous as to 'not like you back' or whatever. At the end of the day, your feelings (be it romantic, sexual, or both) most certainly aren't her responsibility.


 You keep acting like someone argues differently. It might be easier to argue against a case not made, but it does little good.




Falling Leaves said:


> Who said I was only speaking about this forum? I certainly didn't.


 Then you are being disingenuous. There are about 5 threads related to this phenomenon active right now, and no one in any of them defend the straw man you constructed. If there are posters on other forums claiming their feelings are other's responsibility, then go there and talk against them. Your acting like their feelings are my responsibility (and the responsibility of others in these threads) which is the exact opposite point you are raising.




Falling Leaves said:


> And you think you can speak for them because...?


 Ridiculous question. Back when your privilege was showing, you had no problem speaking for them. Don't be a hypocrite.




Falling Leaves said:


> There is a difference between asserting yourself as compassionate and _actually_ being compassionate, you know. Furthermore, looking at it in terms of 'she said she likes single trait and I have single trait, therefore, she must like me' is such a painfully naive stance to take.
> 
> In truth, people like a mixing pot of factors, some which they are aware of, some which they aren't. Nobody actually says 'aha! That person is making a conscious effort to exhibit a trait I mentioned liking 2 months ago - now, I must date them!'
> 
> If anybody sincerely believes what you described, more fool them I say.


 I will agree that traits are an oversimplification, but that's kind of my point. I argue that a lot of friendzone problems stem from a lack of clear and proper communication. A big reason why guys/girls ignorantly assume that simple traits matter is because they are often told that they do. Again, if women were honest with guys about what they really want, guys wouldn't complain as much because their expectations would not be disassociated with what the girl communicated.




Falling Leaves said:


> I don't see what 'men are generally expected to initiate relationships' has to do with my statement of 'if you like someone, either tell them how you feel or stop complaining about them not liking you back (regardless of your gender)'. To be honest, it seems like a non-sequitur.


 You brought up fear of rejection. Like I've said more than once, your argument that people aren't responsible for other people's feelings is not contested, and acting like it is makes for a dishonest strawman. I did state, however, that the *closest* thing that would address your strawman is the criticism that men have to do all of the initiating. It's kind of hard to address your statements, because your statements are addressing content not found in this forum.




Falling Leaves said:


> ...except when you are employed by someone, there is a contractual agreement that if you do X, you'll get paid - in this instance, you have a justification for feeling cheated as someone hasn't met their end of the bargain. This is something which was explicitly agreed in writing _before_ you undertook the work.
> 
> In terms of Nice Guy (TM) stuff, it's not like the girl agrees that 'okay, if you are nice to me for 6 months, I will sleep with/date you'. She hasn't failed to meet her side of the deal simply because there was never a deal to begin with - just as there is no 'deal' with the national lottery saying if you buy X amount of tickets, you will win a cash prize.
> 
> ...actually, a better analogy would be simply turning up at a workplace, working for X-amount of time, and then demanding that you are paid for what you've done. In which case, the boss would be quite right to tell you to fuck off.


 Except he lets said person work as much as they will without stopping them. If you honestly think it's okay for a business owner to do this, then I am hard pressed to believe you hold any standard of ethics. If the boss tells him to fuck off as soon as he notices, then that's the right thing to do. Similarly, there are some people who nip it in the bud as soon as they notice that someone is trying to win their affections, and there are scumbags who friendzone them in order to benefit as long as they can (those ignorant of the situation are innocent of malice and are not in that category).



Falling Leaves said:


> To be honest, if you sincerely take such an analogy as reasonable, that says far more about you than anything else. It's this kind of behavior I'm speaking about - mentally calculating time spent together, times you listened to them, things you've bought them, etc. and totting up a mental 'debt', whereby if she doesn't sleep with/date you, then you've somehow been cheated. The term 'false sense of entitlement' springs to mind - and if you honestly believe doing these things in any way, shape or form means you deserve anything from anybody, then I have no more to say to you (other than 'grow up' of course).


 Like it or not, social exchange theory exists. Any relationship requires a give and take (not just romantic ones or one-sided romantic ones). Platonic friendships also run into the problem where one friend does all the taking and the other feels slighted. In these cases, it could still be argued that the friend takes a tally (she always talks about her problems, but never listens to mine, he only makes time for me when it's convenient for him, etc). It happens every single day.

People who friendzone are often takers in this scenario (which is why its a misnomer; friendzoners make the worst friends).

To act like a friendship (or any relationship, for that matter) does not require an exchange of time, resources, and emotional availability tells me a lot about you. It's this kind of behavior that screams "My shit doesn't stink. I'm a lottery prize, being my friend is it's own reward. I don't need to listen to you or help you out; and if you "count a tally" every time you do something for me that I am unwilling to do for you, then you are the one with the problem." The term 'arrogantly selfish' springs to mind - and if you honestly believe doing these things in any way, shape or form means you deserve anything from anybody, then I have no more to say to you (other than 'grow up' of course). 



Falling Leaves said:


> Now now, ad hominem attacks simply aren't nice :tongue:


Then I would suggest you refrain from using them.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm honestly not a big fan of either concept.

A man who complains about friendzoning is essentially complaining about not getting sex, and implying that women are unwilling to provide it. The main reason I don't care for that is because it lumps women together. Yes, perhaps a few women are "teases" who try to take advantage of their sex appeal to get free drinks at a bar. But plenty of women out there are promiscuous. 

I've noticed something odd while observing people. Men tend to go after women who are physically unavailable, and women tend to go after men who are emotionally unavailable. There are plenty of women who ARE physically available, and plenty of men who ARE emotionally available... but they tend to overlook one another and go after people they're incompatible with. 

For some odd reason, the more similar a man and a woman are to each other in terms of personality, the less likely they seem to pursue a relationship. They both seem to want a partner of the opposite sex who reinforces their notion of a fundamental difference between sexes that reaffirms their membership in their own sex.

Anyway, I basically dislike the idea of stereotyping women as teases who "friendzone" men, or stereotyping men as people who only want sex. I just feel like it doesn't make the situation any better. Looking at life that way decreases your chances of finding a male/female individual with the qualities you seek, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To make a long story short... I think humanity in general is really stupid and prone to horrible stereotypes and expectations.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

The friend zone and the fuck zone are still mythical locations made up by people with poor mate selection habits. The end.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> The friend zone and the fuck zone are still mythical locations made up by people with poor mate selection habits. The end.


koalaroo has spoken.

/thread


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't understand why people care enough to make up terms like this. It's stupid.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> koalaroo has spoken.
> 
> /thread


I attempt to disseminate the truth, even to the willfully ignorant.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

Ok. The whole thing is silly. I, for one, hold the belief that girls and boys can't be friends. It's bloody impossible and so many people try to fight it. I don't care whether you've had a straight male best friend since you were 13, that dude liked you at some point or probably still does. Of course men don't admit this because if they did, they'll scare off the woman. If you like each other then go out, if only one of you likes the other then it's best to end contact and move on.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> Ok. The whole thing is silly. I, for one, hold the belief that girls and boys can't be friends. It's bloody impossible and so many people try to fight it. I don't care whether you've had a straight male best friend since you were 13, that dude liked you at some point or probably still does. Of course men don't admit this because if they did, they'll scare off the woman. If you like each other then go out, if only one of you likes the other then it's best to end contact and move on.


All but three of my friends are guys; one of my best friends is a guy. Men and women can most certainly be friends without complications if clear boundaries are established. You simply have to establish business-like friendships with members of the opposite sex, or brother-sister relationships with them. And, of course, stating that men and women can't be friends totally leaves out the lesbian and gay community. Gay guys can most certainly be friends with other guys (gay or straight) without romantic entanglements. The same is true for lesbians with female friends.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> All but three of my friends are guys; one of my best friends is a guy. Men and women can most certainly be friends without complications if clear boundaries are established. You simply have to establish business-like friendships with members of the opposite sex, or brother-sister relationships with them. And, of course, stating that men and women can't be friends totally leaves out the lesbian and gay community. Gay guys can most certainly be friends with other guys (gay or straight) without romantic entanglements. The same is true for lesbians with female friends.


I was talking about the relationship between a straight male and straight female. My point was that woman can be friends with males and feel no sexual attraction to them whatsoever but men can't. So for the sake of you not hurting because you lost a good friend and hurting him because he's now developed feelings that he knows won't be returned, it's best not establish a friendship. You can't know for sure that your male friends never viewed you as something more than a friend at some point. Like I said, they'll probably won't admit it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Ella Mae said:


> I was talking about the relationship between a straight male and straight female. My point was that woman can be friends with males and feel no sexual attraction to them whatsoever but men can't. So for the sake of you not hurting because you lost a good friend and hurting him because he's now developed feelings that he knows won't be returned, it's best not establish a friendship. You can't know for sure that your male friends never viewed you as something more than a friend at some point. Like I said, they'll probably won't admit it.



I think its a stretch for me to assume that every male friend I've ever had was sexually attracted to me. Men aren't just attracted to anything and everything all the time. Well, maybe some of them I guess, but most aren't.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

I have yet to meet a woman who actually percieve men according to the concept of "friendzoning". I'm sure they exist but I think it's mostly a male projection.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> I was talking about the relationship between a straight male and straight female. My point was that woman can be friends with males and feel no sexual attraction to them whatsoever but men can't. So for the sake of you not hurting because you lost a good friend and hurting him because he's now developed feelings that he knows won't be returned, it's best not establish a friendship. You can't know for sure that your male friends never viewed you as something more than a friend at some point. Like I said, they'll probably won't admit it.


I don't think what you've said is true of only men developing feelings for female friends. I think it's true that men or women could develop feelings for a friend, but frankly if the boundary is established, rarely will it be crossed. The best thing you can do when you develop feelings for a friend is to be honest about them; you'll probably be rejected with the established boundary, but something more could come from it (don't keep your hopes up). Most of my male friends became my friends while I was dating other guys; they have never had any romantic aspirations, and to this day they do not continue to have romantic aspirations because I tend to nip that shit in the bud. I prefer for them to see me as their sister, and frequently since I play video games better than the majority of them, I'm one of the guys. Also, most of my male friends are either married or dating as well, and the only hiccup that comes up is when a jealous girlfriend gets paranoid about the situation, at which point I just tell her straight up that her dude is undesirable to me. At any rate, I tend to prefer male to female company -- and my female friends also act like one of the guys.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Honey, the article completely disproves your point. It at least proves that women may be slightly more promiscuous than men, and not only that, it proves that women are inhibited in the expression of their sexual side. So, what I'm saying is this, men are allowed to be more open about their sexuality; women are not. That's basically the gist of the article. Sexual partners (whether that proves libido or not) are almost the same.


Darling, it doesn't. The fact that women have had more sexual partners in that experiment doesn't prove that they have the same level of libido. They're completely separate things. I didn't say anything about sexual partners, I'm talking about libido. Someone can have high libido and not act on it. Whilst another person may have a lower level of libido and be highly promiscuous. Let's stick to what caused this big discussion in the first place. It was libido not sexual partners


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

Bear987 said:


> Whether you're right or not - merely asserting that you are right and (by) dismissing every objection as a negligible minority is no way to establish it.
> 
> You've backtracked already by the way. You started out by stating _all_ guys cannot be friends with girls without wanting certain benefits - and now you've nuanced your position to 'the majority' of guys. How many more objections will it take for you to abandon the whole idea completely?
> 
> ...


I've already provided information with an article that states majority of men have an higher libido. I can't edit my words constantly so the fact that I've stated everything I say is in general terms should be enough (and I've stated it numerous times)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> Darling, it doesn't. The fact that women have had more sexual partners in that experiment doesn't prove that the have the same level of libido. They're completely separate things. I didn't say anything about sexual partners, I'm talking about libido. Someone can have high libido and not act on it. Whilst another person may have a lower level of libido and be highly promiscuous. Let's stick to what caused this big discussion in the first place. It was libido not sexual partners


Sweetheart, you're backed into a corner and are prevaricating at this point; I think promiscuity and libido would have to be intrinsically tied.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

This doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting look at human libido:

Study: Why Older Women Have Higher Sex Drive - TIME

(It's a look at the cougar phenomenon.)


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> But it's small in the OPPOSITE direction of what you claimed. The women having slightly more sexual partners than the men.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well you can't really show yourself to be entirely correct in anything. There's always two sides to a theory. What I'm saying is my claim has a lot more evidence behind it. Whether you agree with me or not is not the issue, the issue is that my point is valid and has been for years. Other people can disagree but to flat out say that it's not valid is crazy, considering the amount of evidence behind it. I have no problem with someone saying that the libido of women (not sexual partners) is slightly lower but to say that it's exactly the same of that of men and not provide evidence doesn't do much in a debate. That particular article showed that women have higher sexual partners but that doesn't mean higher libido. They're different


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> That particular article showed that women have higher sexual partners but that doesn't mean higher libido.


So, write me a syllogism that proves that libido and promiscuity are not tied.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Sweetheart, you're backed into a corner and are prevaricating at this point; I think promiscuity and libido would have to be intrinsically tied.


Libido means sexual desire. Sexual desire doesn't have to be acted upon. So no I'm not in a corner, you're just not registering what I'm saying quick enough


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> Libido means sexual desire. Sexual desire doesn't have to be acted upon. So no I'm not in a corner, you're just not registering what I'm saying quick enough


Oh, I get what you're saying; I simply disagree with a statement that you haven't proven. Thank you for the personal insult; it was delectable. Just as mature as my "NO NO NO NO NO" cat GIF.


----------



## asewland (Mar 5, 2012)

If it hasn't been said already, it's important to note that men can be 'fuckzoned' and women can 'friendzoned'. Admittedly, I've even friendzoned someone before. We probably all have.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Oh, I get what you're saying; I simply disagree with a statement that you haven't proven. Thank you for the personal insult; it was delectable. Just as mature as my "NO NO NO NO NO" cat GIF.


Wasn't an insult, sorry you took it that way. It's a fact. You seem to be merging the two when they're different. Your statement of saying it is the same, means that whenever someone feels strong sexual desire, they act on it making them promiscuous. I'm sure you would disagree on that? yes? Good, then I've proven my point.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Ella Mae said:


> I've already provided information with an article that states majority of men have an higher libido. I can't edit my words constantly so the fact that I've stated everything I say is in general terms should be enough (and I've stated it numerous times)


I know, I know - sorry for being late to the party. I could have checked the entire thread before asking something that you guys have already discussed at some length, but I didn't.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Ella Mae said:


> Libido means sexual desire. Sexual desire doesn't have to be acted upon.


That is true, however...

Sexual activity is something that can be measured. Libido is a subjective feeling, something in the mind. How do you propose to measure it independently of sexual activity? 

Also, do you believe that women tend to have sex with people towards whom they feel little or no desire? Is that why you feel that the number of sexual partners they've had is irrelevant?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> Wasn't an insult, sorry you took it that way. It's a fact. You seem to be merging the two when they're different. Your statement of saying it is the same, means that whenever someone feels strong sexual desire, they act on it making them promiscuous. I'm sure you would disagree on that? yes? Good, then I've proven my point.


It actually was an ad hominem attack (you insinuated that I was stupid); that you can't own up to your personal attack is telling of your character. I personally think you should learn what a logical fallacy is and learn what a personal insult is, because calling someone slow is, I assure you, a personal insult. The article I posted earlier basically shows that there are flaws in reporting methods on sexuality, and that women lie more drastically than men about sex and sexual partners. I'm going to let this conversation return to its original programming ("Friendzone versus Fuckzone"); we've derailed this thread long enough. I have no desire to debate with someone who flings personal insults, and then tries to gaslight me into thinking that they haven't. Good day.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> This doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting look at human libido:
> 
> Study: Why Older Women Have Higher Sex Drive - TIME
> 
> (It's a look at the cougar phenomenon.)


With the cat GIF still fresh in mind..... The cougar below says: "Hey! I thought the article would be about me!" (How cute is this tiny cougar? I want to hug it until people consider me to be a sort of cougar phenomenon. Does that even makes sense?)


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> That is true, however...
> 
> Sexual activity is something that can be measured. Libido is a subjective feeling, something in the mind. How do you propose to measure it independently of sexual activity?
> 
> Also, do you believe that women tend to have sex with people towards whom they feel little or no desire? Is that why you feel that the number of sexual partners they've had is irrelevant?


Libido can be measured by looking at the brain activity. There a loads of experiments online where they do brain scans to show the places that are active when a man (or woman) is sexually aroused. 

I believe the numbers of sexual partners to be irrelevant because yes, women can and have slept with guys they feel no sexual attraction. Some men do it too. Because the whole discussion was about level of libido and not sexual partners, I thought the article was pointless.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

As for me, love is about giving rather than receiving (I receive through being enabled/allowed to give). It doesn't really matter to me whether I am parked in someone's friend-zone (if there even is such a thing). My reaction would be: I am in the friend-zone? YES! That means I can be wonderful to you, without you running away from me, right?

While we're still on cougars, wait: are we? - I am like this as a person:










I am very observant, I'll know what you like within minutes (at times). And I am indeed just waiting for you to let your guard down, so I can figuratively jump you and show you the depths of my affection for you.

Perhaps, that's enough about me pretending to be a feline. As for friend or that other zone, I tend to run a little hot and cold. I either care for you or I do not. I don't waste time on people I dislike. So to me, although I know there is a difference between being friends and being lovers, I don't deal with people I don't like anyway. Being rejected as a possible lover does hurt, but I know it makes no sense to take it too personally.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> It actually was an ad hominem attack (you insinuated that I was stupid); that you can't own up to your personal attack is telling of your character. I personally think you should learn what a logical fallacy is and learn what a personal insult is, because calling someone slow is, I assure you, a personal insult. The article I posted earlier basically shows that there are flaws in reporting methods on sexuality, and that women lie more drastically than men about sex and sexual partners. I'm going to let this conversation return to its original programming ("Friendzone versus Fuckzone"); we've derailed this thread long enough. I have no desire to debate with someone who flings personal insults, and then tries to gaslight me into thinking that they haven't. Good day.


I owe up to it. I was being sarcastic when I said sorry, didn't register that either. Of course I'm going to hit back. If I remember clearly you posted that gif and portrayed me as someone who was losing a debate (and also to make others laugh). Wasn't that personal? It was. I took you as an equal but clearly you didn't, you saw me as someone beneath you. Your article was talking about sexual partners whereas this discussion started about libido. I agree we should let it get back to the original topic but next time don't take the mickey out of someone and not expect them to hit you back with something else. If I deeply offended you then I'm sorry (no sarcasm intended) but I get the feeling you're not or at least will say you're not. Nevertheless, good day to you too


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Ella Mae said:


> Libido can be measured by looking at the brain activity. There a loads of experiments online where they do brain scans to show the places that are active when a man (or woman) is sexually aroused.


In that case, your own WebMD article, and several other articles I've read involving brain scans say that women get turned on by looking at male-male, male-female, and female-female pornography, regardless of their sexual orientation. Men were only aroused by looking at pornography compatible with their own orientation. Also, this article:

Sex on the brain: What turns women on, mapped out - life - 05 August 2011 - New Scientist

Says that women can experience orgasm from stimulation of several different body parts aside from the genitals. In other words, they suggest that it's easier for women to become sexually aroused internally, but that they're less likely to act on it than men.

So, women are more responsive to all kinds of sexual stimuli, and achieve orgasm more easily from physical stimulation of various parts of the body.

How does any of that suggest that women have lower libidos?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> I owe up to it. *I was being sarcastic when I said sorry, didn't register that either.* Of course I'm going to hit back. If I remember clearly you posted that gif and portrayed me as someone who was losing a debate (and also to make others laugh). Wasn't that personal? It was. I took you as an equal but clearly you didn't, you saw me as someone beneath you. Your article was talking about sexual partners whereas this discussion started about libido. I agree we should let it get back to the original topic but next time don't take the mickey out of someone and not expect them to hit you back with something else. If I deeply offended you then I'm sorry (no sarcasm intended) but I get the feeling you're not or at least will say you're not. Nevertheless, good day to you too


No, I registered the sarcasm (P.S., sarcasm is the height of passive aggression), but that doesn't mean you owned up to it, at all. The bold is yet another personal insult, albeit a more thinly veiled one. I'm personally not offended; it takes a great deal to offend me. I admitted that my "NO NO NO NO NO" cat GIF was immature; you didn't own up to the fact that your actions are personal attacks; you in fact denied that what you did was a personal attack with another personal attack. Brava!


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> In that case, your own WebMD article, and several other articles I've read involving brain scans say that women get turned on by looking at male-male, male-female, and female-female pornography, regardless of their sexual orientation. Men were only aroused by looking at pornography compatible with their own orientation. Also, this article:
> 
> Sex on the brain: What turns women on, mapped out - life - 05 August 2011 - New Scientist
> 
> ...


All of this is about women's sexual attraction on it's own. There's no comparison to that of men. The reason why women responded more to porn of all genre's is because women are emotional. They view sex as an emotional activity whereas men view it as physical one (even though it can be emotional for them too). So to them it doesn't matter who is having sex so long as the love is transparent thus making them sexually aroused.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Ella Mae said:


> All of this is about women's sexual attraction on it's own. There's no comparison to that of men. The reason why women responded more to porn of all genre's is because women are emotional. They view sex as an emotional activity whereas men view it as physical one (even though it can be emotional for them too). So to them it doesn't matter who is having sex so long as the love is transparent thus making them sexually aroused.


Okay, I see what you're getting at now.

The way that men and women are different isn't in terms of higher or lower libido. What you're trying to get at, is that women's libido is based on emotion, while men's libido is more based on something physical, right?

And you feel that this difference in processing is the reason why men and women should not be friends, correct? 

Presumably, you're thinking that woman would always physically arouse a man no matter how he feels towards her emotionally, while a woman's emotional attitude towards a man would potentially lessen the attraction.

If so, that makes more sense to me. I could sort of see that kind of pattern appearing, but it doesn't seem strong enough to apply as a general principle.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> No, I registered the sarcasm (P.S., sarcasm is the height of passive aggression), but that doesn't mean you owned up to it, at all. The bold is yet another personal insult, albeit a more thinly veiled one. I'm personally not offended; it takes a great deal to offend me. I admitted that my "NO NO NO NO NO" cat GIF was immature; you didn't own up to the fact that your actions are personal attacks; you in fact denied that what you did was a personal attack with another personal attack. Brava!


I guess the words ''I owe up to it'' means that I didn't owe up to it. I'll make it clearer then. I owe up to personally attacking you by insinuated you were stupid, only because you insinuated it first. Like I said, I'm not gunna sit back and let someone insult me without hitting back. I don't know why you're surprised by it. Let it go, it happened.. after all you're not personally offended


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> Okay, I see what you're getting at now.
> 
> The way that men and women are different isn't in terms of higher or lower libido. What you're trying to get at, is that women's libido is based on emotion, while men's libido is more based on something physical, right?
> 
> ...


Well, yes. Sort of. Men and women can choose to be friends, I don't care, I don't force my beliefs on other people. I was just saying, for me personally, it doesn't seem wise cause you can never really know if there's an attraction present on his behalf or not.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> Okay, I see what you're getting at now.
> 
> The way that men and women are different isn't in terms of higher or lower libido. What you're trying to get at, is that women's libido is based on emotion, while men's libido is more based on something physical, right?
> 
> ...


It happens a lot more than you think and causes a lot more hurt then you'd imagine. Which is why I hold that certain belief


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> I guess the words ''I owe up to it'' means that I didn't owe up to it. I'll make it clearer then. I owe up to personally attacking you by insinuated you were stupid, only because you insinuated it first. Like I said, I'm not gunna sit back and let someone insult me without hitting back. I don't know why you're surprised by it. Let it go, it happened.. after all you're not personally offended


I don't think I insinuated that you were stupid, but rather that you had your head in the sand, which I think you still kind of do. You kept positing that men's sexuality/sexual drive is much higher than women's, when in fact it isn't. I still think that promiscuity and libido are intrinsically tied; I've never denied that you don't have to act on sexual passions, but I think if you looked at sexual partners and masturbatory habits, that you'd find some indicator of sex drive. 

Men masturbate at a younger age than women do, but what I've read on it suggested that the reason for this is that the penis is more straightforward than the female plumbing (I know I didn't figure it out until I was taught about the clitoris). What I've also read on this subject suggests that 92% of women between 18-30 masturbate, and of these 92% of respondents, they masturbated three times per week; men in their twenties tend to orgasm three times per week as well. So, I personally think that sex drive and acting upon desires is intrinsically tied. 

I also read a few conflicting surveys on who fantasizes more (men or women? -- read one where women fantasize more, read one where men fantasize more), but the pattern across the board seems to be that whereas female fantasies are more emotional/romantic, male fantasies tend to be more hardcore in nature (I wonder if porn has something to do with this.)


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Ella Mae said:


> Well, yes. Sort of. Men and women can choose to be friends, I don't care, I don't force my beliefs on other people. I was just saying, for me personally, it doesn't seem wise cause you can never really know if there's an attraction present on his behalf or not.


Well, according to what we've read so far, men are generally more honest about their sexual feelings than women. So all you really have to do is ask the guy.

Also, how do you know your _female _friends aren't attracted to you? There was this team of cheerleaders in high school that were always staring at other one another's butts when they thought no one was looking... if I asked what they were looking at, they blushed so much. xD

I mean, given the results of those brain scans, every group besides gay men are potentially attracted to women. So if you want to be totally safe, you more or less have to limit your circle of platonic friends to gay men and asexuals.



Ella Mae said:


> It happens a lot more than you think and causes a lot more hurt then you'd imagine. Which is why I hold that certain belief


I can understand that, I suppose. If you feel that that's the best way to avoid hurting people, then I can't really fault you for it. I would never ask someone to do something that they felt would harm others.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I don't think I insinuated that you were stupid, but rather that you had your head in the sand, which I think you still kind of do. You kept positing that men's sexuality/sexual drive is much higher than women's, when in fact it isn't. I still think that promiscuity and libido are intrinsically tied; I've never denied that you don't have to act on sexual passions, but I think if you looked at sexual partners and masturbatory habits, that you'd find some indicator of sex drive.
> 
> Men masturbate at a younger age than women do, but what I've read on it suggested that the reason for this is that the penis is more straightforward than the female plumbing (I know I didn't figure it out until I was taught about the clitoris). What I've also read on this subject suggests that 92% of women between 18-30 masturbate, and of these 92% of respondents, they masturbated three times per week; men in their twenties tend to orgasm three times per week as well. So, I personally think that sex drive and acting upon desires is intrinsically tied.
> 
> I also read a few conflicting surveys on who fantasizes more (men or women? -- read one where women fantasize more, read one where men fantasize more), but the pattern across the board seems to be that whereas female fantasies are more emotional/romantic, male fantasies tend to be more hardcore in nature (I wonder if porn has something to do with this.)


If you viewed the points I was making as respectable, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not, you wouldn't have posted that gif. It was clear you thought I was stupid even if you didn't say it. I don't have my head in the sand, I just have an opposing view to you. I could just as easily say you have your head in the sand. You can continue talking about male/female libido but I've said everything I was gunna say so I don't see any point of me responding, it'll just keep going cause neither of us are gunna see eye to eye on this issue, which is ok cause my reason for carrying out this 'debate' was so you could see the point I'm making is valid, not so you could agree. Bye


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ella Mae said:


> If you viewed the points I was making as respectable, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not, you wouldn't have posted that gif. It was clear you thought I was stupid even if you didn't say it. I don't have my head in the sand, I just have an opposing view to you. I could just as easily say you have your head in the sand. You can continue talking about male/female libido but I've said everything I was gunna say so I don't see any point of me responding, it'll just keep going cause neither of us are gunna see eye to eye on this issue, which is ok cause my reason for carrying out this 'debate' was so you could see the point I'm making is valid, not so you could agree. Bye


Well, everything I've read has suggested that your point is actually not valid; so, you're right -- this isn't going to go anywhere.


----------



## Ella Mae (Feb 28, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> Well, according to what we've read so far, men are generally more honest about their sexual feelings than women. So all you really have to do is ask the guy.
> 
> Also, how do you know your _female _friends aren't attracted to you? There was this team of cheerleaders in high school that were always staring at other one another's butts when they thought no one was looking... if I asked what they were looking at, they blushed so much. xD
> 
> ...


That's thing. I could ask him and maybe I would not feel the same. That would result in me hurting him and myself by losing a friend. All of that could've been avoided if we didn't go down the 'friendship' route. But thanks for understanding anyway. I appreciate your outlook on it.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Discussions about differences in the ways that men and women think have always made me slightly uncomfortable. Even if a study does manage to establish some kind of difference, there's still the question of whether it's innate or conditioned. Not only that, most of these proposed differences turn out to be both small, and smaller than we thought they'd be. With that in mind, whatever point we're trying to make here is going to be on shaky ground right from the start. 

Reflecting on the discussion about whether or not (heterosexual) men and women can be friends, I think it's pretty obvious that they can, as long as they're smart about it. I agree that attraction is perhaps somewhat inevitable, but I also think at least some people recognise when expressing this attraction is going to do more harm than good, and are able to suppress it. Not everyone, but I think I'm more optimistic about than most. Personally, friendships mean a lot to me so I really try not to screw them up by being dumb or selfish. It takes a big of practice and some honest reflection, but most of the time it's possible to figure out when pursuing a sexual relationship is a bad idea. And once you've know that you're being stupid, calming the libido becomes a lot easier.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Ella Mae said:


> All of this is about women's sexual attraction on it's own. There's no comparison to that of men. The reason why women responded more to porn of all genre's is because women are emotional. They view sex as an emotional activity whereas men view it as physical one (even though it can be emotional for them too). So to them it doesn't matter who is having sex so long as the love is transparent thus making them sexually aroused.



It's interesting to note that women are known to become sexually aroused by videos of other primates having sex, while men are not. I can't link the study because I'm on my phone and it's difficult, but I don't see how that could have anything to do with emotion over physical. Could very well have to do with our evolution and branching off from other primates, our closest cousins being the promiscuous chimpanzees. 

Just an interesting little tidbit, I thought.

EDIT: this is pretty off the friend zone topic, sorry. I just remember using this study in a paper once and the conversation reminded me of it.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Discussions about differences in the ways that men and women think have always made me slightly uncomfortable. Even if a study does manage to establish some kind of difference, there's still the question of whether it's innate or conditioned. Not only that, most of these proposed differences turn out to be both small, and smaller than we thought they'd be. With that in mind, whatever point we're trying to make here is going to be on shaky ground right from the start.
> 
> Reflecting on the discussion about whether or not (heterosexual) men and women can be friends, I think it's pretty obvious that they can, as long as they're smart about it. I agree that attraction is perhaps somewhat inevitable, but I also think at least some people recognise when expressing this attraction is going to do more harm than good, and are able to suppress it. Not everyone, but I think I'm more optimistic about than most. Personally, friendships mean a lot to me so I really try not to screw them up by being dumb or selfish. It takes a big of practice and some honest reflection, but most of the time it's possible to figure out when pursuing a sexual relationship is a bad idea. And once you've know that you're being stupid, calming the libido becomes a lot easier.


I think the differences are largely conditional. I also believe men and women can be friends. To be honest, I think American culture sexualizes everything, so male/female friendships are largely pushed into sexual terms. That's why I try to disassociate the friendzone phenomena from strictly sexual aspects of it (because I strongly believe the problem is *not* sexual). To me, the problem is not largely different from a problem in a friendship between two girls or two boys.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Ella Mae said:


> Btw I'm speaking in general terms. So for the guys who are telling me how they have females friends and feel nothing, kudos to you. I'm talking about the majority.


Majority? I only hang out with guys to the point they see me as one of them, not as a potential girlfriend.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Discussions about differences in the ways that men and women think have always made me slightly uncomfortable. Even if a study does manage to establish some kind of difference, there's still the question of whether it's innate or conditioned. Not only that, most of these proposed differences turn out to be both small, and smaller than we thought they'd be. With that in mind, whatever point we're trying to make here is going to be on shaky ground right from the start.




I don't think people put enough stock into the differences between men and women. This can cause problems. For instance: There were some universities in the UK tried to force an equal number of male and females in their Chemistry Department. Basically they made it so they could never accept more males than females. If 200 Men sign up and only 75 women do the same, then they can only accept 75 male students.

They took this step because they assumed men and women are innately different and the only thing stopping women from going after high paying jobs(which is the cause of the 75 cent/dollar number feminists throw around), is that they're not given the opportunity. Or possibly that having an overabundance of male students made the female students uncomfortable.

At first, everything looked fine. As time passed, however, more and more females abandoned that field of study. Which meant that they had to admit fewer and fewer males. It got so bad they eventually had to shut down their Chemistry Departments.



It isn't that women aren't given the opportunity. In most first world countries, there's nothing really stopping them. Unfortunately, when given the choice, most women still have no desire to spend their lives in those fields. They find them boring and would rather study something else.


So there ARE differences between men and women, both physical and psychological. Like that story about our organs being different. Women's hearts, for instance, are tougher and retain their shape better than men's. Which means that women are possibly being under-dosed and men are being overdosed with medication.



Men and women are different beyond simply our genitalia. Denying that because you want to believe they're not isn't going to help anyone.





> Reflecting on the discussion about whether or not (heterosexual) men and women can be friends, I think it's pretty obvious that they can, as long as they're smart about it. I agree that attraction is perhaps somewhat inevitable, but I also think at least some people recognise when expressing this attraction is going to do more harm than good, and are able to suppress it. Not everyone, but I think I'm more optimistic about than most. Personally, friendships mean a lot to me so I really try not to screw them up by being dumb or selfish. It takes a big of practice and some honest reflection, but most of the time it's possible to figure out when pursuing a sexual relationship is a bad idea. And once you've know that you're being stupid, calming the libido becomes a lot easier.




This I agree with. When it comes to the friendzone/fuckzone, it's something people need to learn. Not everyone knows it from the start and not everyone is able to see it happen to others and thus learn from their mistakes.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

The main problem with the friendzone is that it lacks clear definition.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> I don't think people put enough stock into the differences between men and women. This can cause problems. For instance: There were some universities in the UK tried to force an equal number of male and females in their Chemistry Department. Basically they made it so they could never accept more males than females. If 200 Men sign up and only 75 women do the same, then they can only accept 75 male students.
> 
> They took this step because they assumed men and women are innately different and the only thing stopping women from going after high paying jobs(which is the cause of the 75 cent/dollar number feminists throw around), is that they're not given the opportunity. Or possibly that having an overabundance of male students made the female students uncomfortable.
> 
> ...


If you read my message more carefully, you'll find that I never claimed that there was no difference, only that we don't know what they are. You'll also find that I was only talking about cognitive differences -- the physical differences are more obvious and infinitely easier to measure.

Your claim that there are differences is based on a false assumption: that there's a level playing field ("In most first world countries, there's nothing really stopping them."). This study clearly shows that there isn't one; there are strong biases against women in science faculties. It's entirely conceivable that this bias presents itself in a number of perceptible ways, and serves to undermine a female student's enthusiasm for science. 

In response to the failure of this university's chemistry department, it really just sounds like bad policy to me. I got the impression that you were presenting it as an inevitable consequence of trying to encourage women into science (otherwise I don't see how it's relevant), but I certainly don't see it that way. 

And as an example of what can happen when you introduce quotas, consider what happened in India when a law was passed that required that leadership positions were reserved for women in local government. 

_"In 1993 a law was passed requiring that every election cycle leadership positions be reserved for women in randomly selected village councils. Ten years on, women were more likely to stand for, and win, elected positions in councils that had reserved positions for women in the previous two elections. In addition, the experience of living in a village with a female leader on the council improved men’s unambiguously biased perception of women’s leadership abilities. Perhaps no less importantly, though, the effects of the quota system trickled down to the next generation. In villages selected to reserve a female leadership position for two election cycles, girls were much more likely to have similar aspirations to boys, and the gap in educational achievement was closed. This was due entirely to enhancements of girls’ achievements and desires, such as to delay marriage, graduate and get a skilled job. Parents’ aspirations for their daughters were similarly changed under female leadership."_

I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that your conclusion is premature.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

DemonD said:


> The main problem with the friendzone is that it lacks clear definition.


*Nice guy* is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture describing an adult or teenage male with friendly yet unassertive personality traits in the context of a relationship with a woman. As a description "nice guy" is used both positively or negatively. When used positively (and particularly when used as a self-descriptor), it is intended to imply a male who puts the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, gives emotional support, tries to stay out of trouble, and generally acts nicely towards women. In the context of a relationship, it may also refer to traits of honesty, loyalty, romanticism, courtesy and respect. When used in a negative context (usually capitalised), a "Nice Guy" implies a male who is unassertive, does not express his true feelings and uses acts of ostensible friendship with the unstated aim of progressing to a romantic or sexual relationship.

Fixed it for you. Hmm I waz not really aware of the second meaning. This is new to me.

Thou hast enlightened me. I see where some women are coming from now.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> *Nice guy* is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture describing an adult or teenage male with friendly yet unassertive personality traits in the context of a relationship with a woman. As a description "nice guy" is used both positively or negatively. When used positively (and particularly when used as a self-descriptor), it is intended to imply a male who puts the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, gives emotional support, tries to stay out of trouble, and generally acts nicely towards women. In the context of a relationship, it may also refer to traits of honesty, loyalty, romanticism, courtesy and respect. When used in a negative context (usually capitalised), a "Nice Guy" implies a male who is unassertive, does not express his true feelings and uses acts of ostensible friendship with the unstated aim of progressing to a romantic or sexual relationship.
> 
> Fixed it for you. Hmm I waz not really aware of the second meaning. This is new to me.
> 
> Thou hast enlightened me. I see where some women are coming from now.


Glad I could help, even though I said nothing of nice guys.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

DemonD said:


> Glad I could help, even though I said nothing of nice guys.


Yeah I only knew the positive definition. I thought the dude asked her out, she rejected him and then asked for friendship and was pissed then that the nice guy can't deal with being friends, which I interpreted as selfish on the woman's part...which kind of is, considering the crap a guy goes through needing to deal with being friends, seeing her date someone else, when he made his intentions clear in the first place.

^^ I seriously went WTF!?


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> How does any of that suggest that women have lower libidos?


then there wouldn't be so many sources on how women with high libidos feel weird or manly for craving it sex so much, lets try not to be politically correct here.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @_SouthernSaxon_ --
> 
> This pretty much describes what you did:
> 
> ...


Hey, I had a look at your link (and a few others on the site which looked interesting) and they actually did make a fair bit of sense jargon aside. I'm a bit more sympathetic to that girl's reactions to me now than I was before, so thank you. It's just all very strange and totally unlike how I would be.

Still hurts like hell though. Men have feelings too you know.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

SouthernSaxon said:


> Men have feelings too you know.


Everyone has feelings, even psychopaths (though, mostly they just experience rage).


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> But if you say right off the bat "I have a boyfriend" or "Sorry, I'm not interested" people think you're a bitch and narcissistic for assuming every guy who says two words to you is interested. Don't you think? I've seen that so many times.
> 
> And I still don't get it... I have always had an equal number of male and female friends. Is this a generational thing?


I would be put off by a direct comment like that, too. it's tough, the best thing to do is perhaps some time during the first conversation bring up that you have a boyfriend if so. Not straight away, but some time. Just get it out of the way.

I don't know any guys who have female friends outside a work situation. To us, there is a very clear distinction between how we should treat men and women.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> I would be put off by a direct comment like that, too. it's tough, the best thing to do is perhaps some time during the first conversation bring up that you have a boyfriend if so. Not straight away, but some time. Just get it out of the way.
> 
> I don't know any guys who have female friends outside a work situation. To us, there is a very clear distinction between how we should treat men and women.


Yeah, that's what I usually do. It's hard!!

I used to be naive and didn't ever think anybody was hitting on me (I had ugly duckling syndrome), so I probably unintentionally 'led on' a lot of guys by being nice. Then I got wise to what was going on and I started having anxiety whenever a guy would approach me. 

"Shit, is he just being nice? Is he going to ask me out? How do I say no nicely? Am I being flirty? I can't even tell. Maybe I should head this off - but then what if he laughs at me and says he would never ask me out? What if he gets angry? Or what if he's just talking to me to be nice because I look awkward?"

I've chilled a lot since then, but I am just polite to everybody and try not to seem interested if I'm not. It's all you can do I guess. My best friend for ten years was a guy (before he moved away) and I've had guy friends straight from school and I am still close with them. I even have guy friends that are twenty years older - sort of, friends of my dad's, but if I bumped into them in a bar I'd hang out with them like we were friends. I'm a laid back person. I think its only an issue if you let it be.


----------



## Bat (Jul 21, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> I would be put off by a direct comment like that, too. it's tough, the best thing to do is perhaps some time during the first conversation bring up that you have a boyfriend if so. Not straight away, but some time. Just get it out of the way.


You'd be surprised how often it won't make any difference.

You'd be surprised how often telling someone that you're full-on married doesn't make any difference.



> I don't know any guys who have female friends outside a work situation. To us, there is a very clear distinction between how we should treat men and women.


Well, that's you and your friends, though. You can't assume it's that way for everybody everywhere.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

SouthernSaxon said:


> I don't know any guys who have female friends outside a work situation.


You do now


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm tired of talking about the friend zone!

Let's talk about the...









Much more fun...yeah?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

MindBomb said:


> I'm tired of talking about the friend zone!
> 
> Let's talk about the...
> 
> ...


Never been! What's it like?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

What is the fuckzone? A state where you only fuck the person?


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

Aya Nikopol said:


> What is the fuckzone?


Heaven on earth. LOL


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Aya Nikopol said:


> What is the fuckzone? A state where you only fuck the person?


I did not watch the video in the OP, but it sounds like a situation with fuck-buddies where one person wants more than the other and may be holding on in the hopes of a relationship.



SouthernSaxon said:


> Heaven on earth. LOL


For someone who recently thought himself on the shafted end of friendzoning and who was jumping to vilify the woman, I would think you'd be a bit more sympathetic about the situation.


----------



## bengalcat (Dec 8, 2010)

SouthernSaxon said:


> Very few straight, single men (the majority at my age) will want a woman of the same age as a friend.
> 
> Everyone's time would be better spent if this was more widely understood.


This has to be one of the most depressing things I've read on PerC, and that's saying a fair amount. 

I just think of everything I would have missed if I took away the time spent with the men I have been friends with.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

It seems like there is always an underlying hostility between people in threads like these, as if people are really quick to try to find faults in what other people are doing in regards to dating/relationships. That's the main reason they annoy me/I don't participate.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Never been! What's it like?





Aya Nikopol said:


> What is the fuckzone? A state where you only fuck the person?


I've no idea. I thought you all knew ... I'm behind the times with these types of concerns!

Maybe it's that magical lifting of the fog where women would instantly recognize my awesomeness and want to fuck me...just because.

I just thought that the topic would be much less angsty. :/

Plus, I needed a break from work in order to create a photoshopped sign.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

Kanerou said:


> For someone who recently thought himself on the shafted end of friendzoning and who was jumping to vilify the woman, I would think you'd be a bit more sympathetic about the situation.


My situation happened to be a bit more complicated than that, but let's stick on subject please and not go over that again. As for the "fuck zone" (which i'd never heard of until now by the way), it sounds great. That was the point of my comment. I very much like the idea of a woman looking at me and thinking of me in a sexual way.

It isn't my fault that someone else - you - lacks a sense of humour.

Feminist detected.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

bengalcat said:


> This has to be one of the most depressing things I've read on PerC, and that's saying a fair amount.
> 
> I just think of everything I would have missed if I took away the time spent with the men I have been friends with.


I'm beginning to wonder whether we inhabit the same planet here.

You are looking at your situtaion from a woman's perspective. I am looking at it from a man's. I find it very hard to believe that none of your male friends ever have had a sexual attraction to you. 

My point here is that men who end up being friends of women do not always start that way. You don't seem to be able to understand how male attraction works. That's fine, but i'm trying to explain...and I'm a strange man who isn't going to eupehmise anything, either, as your male friends may well do if you ask them.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

SouthernSaxon said:


> My situation happened to be a bit more complicated than that, but let's stick on subject please and not go over that again.


I had assumed that you knew what the term meant (it's a pretty easy one to guess), and that you were approaching it from the -zoning end. (Yeah, I jumped to conclusions on the second part. The first was a pretty reasonable assumption.) Had that been the case, bringing up your situation was perfectly logical.



> As for the "fuck zone" (which i'd never heard of until now by the way), it sounds great. That was the point of my comment. I very much like the idea of a woman looking at me and thinking of me in a sexual way.


If you and that woman were having sex regularly, and you wanted something more (like a relationship) but she only saw you as a lay, that would be the "fuck zone". It would be painful and stressful for you, not a free pass to fun sexy times.



> It isn't my fault that someone else - you - lacks a sense of humour.


Humor has nothing to do with this. I feel like you're just reaching for an insult here. 



> Feminist detected.


This is a much clearer attempt to insult me. You think calling me a feminist is derogatory? Aren't you precious?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

So I'll speak up and give an example. My first and only involvement with a man would be considered "fuck zone". I was a naive twenty-year-old with no relationship experience thanks to religious and paranoid parents. He was a friend of mine, still one of the closest male friends I've had. He tried for a long time to get close to me physically, and I wasn't having it; I've dealt with abuse in my life, and it's made me somewhat anti-contact and incredibly self-protective. I did eventually decide I could trust him, and things went from there. I had been attracted to him for some time. He didn't want a relationship, and he made this very clear multiple times. I thought that might change if I waited around long enough. Yeah, no. Turns out he was screwing a mutual friend and hadn't told me because he figured I'd stop putting out for him, and he wanted what he could get. (Yes, he told me this.) He hadn't told her about me, either, but he at least let her know he was messing around with someone else, and she figured out I was the other party. She was OK with the arrangement. I didn't like the situation at all, but I put up with it briefly; I knew he'd leave if I put my foot down. That pretty quickly went to hell, and I learned that I do not and will not share partners. He later moved away, and I took the opportunity to cut all ties with him. He will never enter my life again. I also cut ties with the friend; we were friends only because she happened to be in proximity to him -- which is to say that our association was sheerly a byproduct of my friendship with him, not that I was using her to get to him. While I was fond of her, I had always felt that she was in the way. I ended up breaking off all of our mutual ties later, which was easy since I had switched schools anyway.

I learned from that initial mistake; I now know that "I don't want a relationship" means "I want to be free to fuck other people" and that I have no interest in such a man (or woman). I've learned that if I think a friend is interested in the same man, I should say something even if I fear it will cause conflict. The mutual friend had given me reason to think that she was also interested in him, but I never said anything because I feared it would make things tense between us, and we would theoretically be seeing a lot of each other over that summer. Things might have developed differently had I told her of my feelings for that man and learned that she herself wasn't attracted in that way. Which isn't to say that his character would have been any different or that I needed him in any fashion. He was an asshole. He got pissy when I preferred to give him affection at my pace and on my terms, bitching because I wasn't receptive to his hugs at one time but wanted to give them myself at another. He tried to force my boundaries before anything happened between us; I recall him getting sulky because I wasn't receptive to this. He got angry whenever he thought I might be feeling anything romantic for him. Mind you, this is _experiencing feelings_, not voicing them or pushing them onto him. To this day, I am afraid to express too much interest (platonic or romantic) in someone because I'm afraid they won't feel the same and will disapprove of me for it. Looking back, he was one of the worst people that someone like me could have gotten involved with.

God, that was a novel. Maybe oversharing. Ah well.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Husgark said:


> Why are there suddenly so many "friendzone" threads? They usually all boil down to the ruthless beating of mangled dead horses.


The cherry on top, it's the same people beating said horse :mellow:

Probably necrophiliacs. Whoever knows :mellow:


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

MindBomb said:


> I'm tired of talking about the friend zone!
> 
> Let's talk about the...
> 
> ...


_You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension— a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into......

_


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> Being friendzoned is inevitable unless you make your intentions clear early on with pretty much any woman, as most women are not actively looking for sex like we are (and the ones that are are almost always sluts who will have sex with anyone).


Sounds like madonna/whore complex. 



SouthernSaxon said:


> Case in point, last year I went up to this girl I'd being eying a nice blonde up in a lecture and graced her with my presence one morning. We started talking (I obviously instigated shit).
> 
> However the mistake was that I didn't tell her i wanted to go out with her straight away, I asked her other stuff like what she was doing, where she was from and what she was enjoying about the course. While I was interested in her answers to those questions I also wanted intimate oneness but was too pussy to ask her out for some days.
> 
> ...


How can you say she is leading you on, where it's obvious from what you tell that you were consciously (mis) leading her to think you were being a nice friend? And by virtue of that, you basically friendzoned yourself. But I would call that low balling, trying to get your foot in the door. 




SouthernSaxon said:


> Girls, you don't ever seem to understand that if a strange man takes any interest in you, nine times out of ten_ at least_ he sees relationship potential in you. What is it, 1% of the population is gay (probably less outside America)? Don't act based on the exception to the rule.
> 
> I would much prefer if a girl told me straight up that she had a boyfriend that waste my time for a couple of weeks.


You don't seem to understand, you were not straight up yourself (being honest about your true intentions), but to use your own words, you were being a pussy. And in my experience, unless they're gay (5% here) most women are not looking for pussy. Next time, be brave and stick your neck out for what you believe in. And if you are not, at least own up to it and don't blame someone else.


----------



## DustOfShard (Nov 10, 2012)

Misdirection is the name of the game. Just like life isn't fair, but almost everyone says that it is all your fault (Which is it? ;P). lol So, walk your own path regardless of others. It might be tempting to play by their rules, believe the lie, or do the "right" thing, but don't. Don't give up your weapons, because that is how they (anybody, be it guy or girl) disarm you and you lose the war.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Sounds like madonna/whore complex.
> 
> How can you say she is leading you on, where it's obvious from what you tell that you were consciously (mis) leading her to think you were being a nice friend? And by virtue of that, you basically friendzoned yourself. But I would call that low balling, trying to get your foot in the door.
> 
> You don't seem to understand, you were not straight up yourself (being honest about your true intentions), but to use your own words, you were being a pussy. And in my experience, unless they're gay (5% here) most women are not looking for pussy. Next time, be brave and stick your neck out for what you believe in. And if you are not, at least own up to it and don't blame someone else.


YES! I could kiss you (in a platonic friendzoned way).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> She never encouraged you, unless being friendly and polite is encouraging. I see it all of the time where men misconstrue friendly, polite behavior as an encouragement of their inexpert romantic advances. Sometimes we just want friends and people to have interesting conversations with, even if we aren't sexually interested in them. Just like you aren't telepathic, we aren't telepathic. She didn't toy with you; you simply misinterpreted her actions. Absolutely no friend zoning here, and a lot of projection on your part.


In all fairness, not a few women have a need to please and seek affirmation. But they also do that with other women (and affirm), so it's not necessarily seeking sex or a relation. More like needing to feel sexy or sexually attractive? For a long time I have usually been very contained in expressing appreciation or giving compliments, because I didn't want the woman to think I might want something from her. Or if she was a friend, I thought 'I already told her she was good looking, like a year ago, so why would I say it again when she already knows?' Over time, I've changed that, and am more attentive now, and I'm not afraid anymore to give a wrong impression. It also feels good to see how such a random act of kindness can brighten someone, if only just for a day. (which usually is also the expiration date). It's a win-win strategy rather than playing not to lose. 

However in the already ambiguous context of secret admiration (and playing not to lose), I can imagine behavior like that (seeking affirmation) can be confusing and could be interpreted as flirting (with the intention of sex). I'm sure you as a woman know well enough women can be like that, so while I don't think women always behave like that, or flirt, because they want sex, I think it's better to make that behavior understandable (that the intention of flirting may just be flirting -and an illusion- and is no entitlement to expect sex) rather than denying anything close to it (and how can you tell if you haven't been there?), and tell them they are deluding themselves.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

So there is also a zone for boyfriends and girlfriends who have no sex?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

If somebody's bitter about the energy they've invested, then they invested too much, which is their own fault.

I've also noticed many times that the guys who are more successful with women tend to enjoy being friends with or enjoy talking to women in general. Those that see themselves as friendzoned seem to place a low value on conversations or friendships with women, anyway. It's like any effort on their part is just a means to an end or a 'waste of time' if it doesn't end entirely in their favor.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> If somebody's bitter about the energy they've invested, then they invested too much, which is their own fault.
> 
> I've also noticed many times that the guys who are more successful with women tend to enjoy being friends with or enjoy talking to women in general. Those that see themselves as friendzoned seem to place a low value on conversations or friendships with women, anyway. It's like any effort on their part is just a means to an end or a 'waste of time' if it doesn't end entirely in their favor.


This is the exact opposite of my experience. Most of the players I know who are exceedingly successful with women see them as objects and are pretty darn sexist. The nice guys who girls only want as friends are the ones who actually cares about what she says. Admittedly, there does seem to exist another group which neither appreciates women nor has a lot of success with them.

About the energy: I completely agree. I think in both cases (friendzone and fuckzone) the bitter lashing out is a product of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their commitments.
That being said, I don't think that every time someone brings up the friendzone, they are being bitter or lashing out. There are many posters on this forum who seem exceedingly committed in presenting any and all criticism of the phenomena as bitter whining, when a clear distinction between the two can be easily observed.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> If somebody's bitter about the energy they've invested, then they invested too much, which is their own fault.
> 
> I've also noticed many times that the guys who are more successful with women tend to enjoy being friends with or enjoy talking to women in general. Those that see themselves as friendzoned seem to place a low value on conversations or friendships with women, anyway. It's like any effort on their part is just a means to an end or a 'waste of time' if it doesn't end entirely in their favor.


Kind of the gist of it all.

I've got enough "friends." A great friend I can bump a not so great friend down teh list for, but if I'm interested in a lady romantically I'm looking to make her a friend and a romance partner.

if she does not want the romance part, then I re evaluate whether she is worthwhile as a platonic friend. sometimes the woman is so brilliant I spend time on her anyway and learn. Usually I just let it fade away quickly.

If I let it fade away quickly, it is shocking how often she comes back around a lot more friendly. 

Friends do not get laid. Really nice guys do not get laid.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

marked174 said:


> This is the exact opposite of my experience. Most of the players I know who are exceedingly successful with women see them as objects and are pretty darn sexist. The nice guys who girls only want as friends are the ones who actually cares about what she says. Admittedly, there does seem to exist another group which neither appreciates women nor has a lot of success with them.
> 
> About the energy: I completely agree. I think in both cases (friendzone and fuckzone) the bitter lashing out is a product of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their commitments.
> That being said, I don't think that every time someone brings up the friendzone, they are being bitter or lashing out. There are many posters on this forum who seem exceedingly committed in presenting any and all criticism of the phenomena as bitter whining, when a clear distinction between the two can be easily observed.


There are men who have women as friends.

There are men who do not have women as friends and fuck women.

There are men who have women as friends and fuck women. 

But if you want to have sex with a woman friend, have sex with her and build the friendship. Or, build the friendship around sex, and then expand the friendship into other things.

Women do not decide one day to fuck their male friend.

(Nomex on.)


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

drmiller100 said:


> There are men who have women as friends.
> 
> There are men who do not have women as friends and fuck women.
> 
> ...


I'm just saying that IME the number guys who don't have female friends but still have sexual success (players) is a lot higher than the guys who do have female friends and also have sexual success (keepers) and is a lot lower than the number of guys who have female friends but are unfortunately sexually unsuccessful (nice guys).


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Seriously, stop with the nice guys finish last nonsense; it's a myth, in part because women will say "You're just too nice" when they don't know how else to let off a guy they're simply not emotionally attracted to. It's a default answer when we don't want to hurt delicate feelings. I now date a pleasant, respectful man. Most women prefer this kind of man. We don't want to be with controlling, domineering men; unfortunately, controlling, domineering men are the most difficult to escape from.

Acting like a "nice" person doesn't entitle you to someone's heart.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Seriously, stop with the nice guys finish last nonsense; it's a myth, in part because women will say "You're just too nice" when they don't know how else to let off a guy they're simply not emotionally attracted to. It's a default answer when we don't want to hurt delicate feelings. I now date a pleasant, respectful man. Most women prefer this kind of man. We don't want to be with controlling, domineering men; unfortunately, controlling, domineering men are the most difficult to escape from.


My whole point is that this lack of honest communication contributes to the problem. The guy who hears "you're just too nice" is being patronized, misled, and lied to. Guess what, people get resentful and bitter when they are patronized, misled, and lied to. I get that girls don't want to deal with either side of rejection, but honestly, honesty is still the best policy.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

marked174 said:


> My whole point is that this lack of honest communication contributes to the problem. The guy who hears "you're just too nice" is being patronized, misled, and lied to. Guess what, people get resentful and bitter when they are patronized, misled, and lied to. I get that girls don't want to deal with either side of rejection, but honestly, honesty is still the best policy.


You're right; dating would be a lot easier if people were honest with themselves and other people. There's lack of communication on both sides, and a lot of misinterpretation on both sides. Men and women are both at fault here. However, it still doesn't mean that nice guys finish last. It also doesn't mean that the friend zone is anything other than someone in limerence misinterpreting signals.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> You're right; dating would be a lot easier if people were honest with themselves and other people. There's lack of communication on both sides, and a lot of misinterpretation on both sides. Men and women are both at fault here. However, it still doesn't mean that nice guys finish last. It also doesn't mean that the friend zone is anything other than someone in limerence misinterpreting signals.


It is more than that. People can be takers in relationships. Some friendships have one person investing all of their time, energy, and resources while the other leeches off of them. I highly suspect that the vast majority of guys in the friendzone experience this to some degree and are articulating it by calling it the friend zone. Really, they just have a lousy friend,


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

marked174 said:


> It is more than that. People can be takers in relationships. Some friendships have one person investing all of their time, energy, and resources while the other leeches off of them. I highly suspect that the vast majority of guys in the friendzone experience this to some degree and are articulating it by calling it the friend zone. Really, they just have a lousy friend,


I don't think it's the friendzone (I say this because I just don't think the friendzone is a thing). It just sounds like an all around shit friendship that guys and gals need to find a way to extract themselves from. I realize this is hard because of the emotional investment, but sometimes you just have to wake up and realize that it's fantasy, with the wrong object of affection. I wish more people would wake up to the fact that a relationship or friendship where one person takes is one sided and not in their interest. However, too many things in life take learning the hard way.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> I don't think it's the friendzone (I say this because I just don't think the friendzone is a thing). It just sounds like an all around shit friendship that guys and gals need to find a way to extract themselves from. I realize this is hard because of the emotional investment, but sometimes you just have to wake up and realize that it's fantasy, with the wrong object of affection. I wish more people would wake up to the fact that a relationship or friendship where one person takes is one sided and not in their interest. However, too many things in life take learning the hard way.


I agree. But I do think that the particular phenomena is widespread enough and relate-able enough to merit a term to describe it. I do agree that calling it the "friendzone" is a misnomer (because it's the worst of friendships), but there is really no other word for it. "A rose by any other name" as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I agree. But I do think that the particular phenomena is widespread enough and relate-able enough to merit a term to describe it. I do agree that calling it the "friendzone" is a misnomer (because it's the worst of friendships), but there is really no other word for it. "A rose by any other name" as far as I'm concerned.


If that was the agreed upon definition of the friendzone, I could accept it. However, I simply see too many people who are, well, in limerence stating that they've been friendzoned, when they simply misinterpreted socially correct behaviors as interest and were never in fact honest with their object of infatuation.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> If that was the agreed upon definition of the friendzone, I could accept it. However, I simply see too many people who are, well, in limerence stating that they've been friendzoned, when they simply misinterpreted socially correct behaviors as interest and were never in fact honest with their object of infatuation.


Right. That's why I think that better terms to distinguish the particulars of this phenomenon should be articulated. A friendzone where a guy has a secret crush the girl is oblivious to is different from a friendzone situation where a girl leads a guy on and then keeps him around for validation and resources.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Friend-zone does not exist. It's an excuse ladies and gents make when the object of their affection doesn't want to have sex with them.

You can't be "friend-zoned" if you refuse to be "just a friend."

The powerful, alpha man is only in the fuck-zone or the no-zone.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

SharpestNiFe said:


> Friend-zone does not exist. It's an excuse ladies and gents make when the object of their affection doesn't want to have sex with them.
> 
> You can't be "friend-zoned" if you refuse to be "just a friend."
> 
> The powerful, alpha man is only in the fuck-zone or the no-zone.


You can have a friend who is female and both understand clearly there is no chance of sex ever. 

I have lots of friends. They are all kind and brilliant in their own way. Some are male, some are female. I have limited time for friends so I spend more of my energy with the more valuable ones.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174:4759937 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I don't see the bullying, so it seems to me you are fighting some demons. Please provide proof, since you so often ask others. Hopefully it's a little bit more convincing as last time, because we seem to have a different view there. Show me the 'bullying' (for having feelings,) in a case where the guy doesn't blame (or bully) others and is treated unfairly. You say it happens so often, so I figure that won't be a problem.
> ...


I see you have a low appreciation of the emotional depth and compassion of the people here at perc in general. 

You may have that opinion, but I estimate and experience the compassion and sincere involvement in other people's thoughts and feelings, much higher than you. In fact if it really was so bad as you describe it, that you can't have feelings or express them, I would have been gone a long time ago and seek to connect with people elsewhere.

You are aware you are judging others, the people here, making such statements?


----------



## 67536 (Nov 9, 2013)

I would never want to be in fuckzone. That sounds vulgar and degrading. Put anyone in fuckzone, you should get the fuck finger.
Hey, so here are two sets of people-fuck or friend. The mind should not work that way.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> I see you have a low appreciation of the emotional depth and compassion of the people here at perc in general.


 Another personal attack and false characterization. Criticizing the negative aspects of a subset of a community does not in any way, diminish the value or appreciation of the other parts which are absolutely positive.




mimesis said:


> You may have that opinion, but I estimate and experience the compassion and sincere involvement in other people's thoughts and feelings, much higher than you. In fact if it really was so bad as you describe it, that you can't have feelings or express them, I would have been gone a long time ago and seek to connect with people elsewhere.


Some of the people here are exceedingly supportive. Also, just about everyone here has a degree of intelligence that I find refreshing. Like it or not, I don't feel like going anywhere. You'll have to try harder than that if you want to get rid of me. 




mimesis said:


> You are aware you are judging others, the people here, making such statements?


 No I am not. There is a really big difference between judging actions and judging people. I'm not judging you or presuming your motives for attacking me or mis-characterizing me (even though you have repeatedly failed to extend to me the same courtesy). Instead, I have pointed out what I perceive to be false assumptions about the phenomena and the bad behavior that stems from that. I address content (and ideas), and try to stay away from personal attacks. I suggest that you do the same.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174:4760827 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > I see you have a low appreciation of the emotional depth and compassion of the people here at perc in general.
> ...


me wanting to get rid of you? I guess that's not a false characterization, but an 'almost' characterization? Like you said it but didn't really say it, like 'almost' calling me a bully.

There's really no use denying now what you said before, about men expressing their feeling. You said 'general' which I would say is a rather propoportionate 'subset'.




marked174:4760827 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware you are judging others, the people here, making such statements?
> ...


You know, I think you have contradicted yourself abundantly now, and you've had the chance to support your assertions, but as expected, you can't. I understand you are now trying to paint me black. Well almost. 

I'm done.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> There's really no use denying now what you said before, about men expressing their feeling. You said 'general' which I would say is a rather propoportionate 'subset'.


 As I said multiple times, it's in regards to the OP. I wasn't referring to guys feelings about the weather or other irrelevent BS.





mimesis said:


> You know, I think you have contradicted yourself abundantly now,


 Citation needed.



mimesis said:


> and you've had the chance to support your assertions, but as expected, you can't.


 You just asserted that I contradicted myself, yet you failed to support that assertion to any degree. I'm not surprised, but I still find that ironic.



mimesis said:


> I understand you are now trying to paint me black. Well almost.


Actually, I'm just addressing your content. If you recall, you were the one swinging black paint at me from your first post. The things you accuse me of are the things you seem to be doing yourself.

Bottom Line: People should be able to express their problems (in a non-threatening or harmful way) without being bullied into silence. How this is in any way so immensely controversial to some people is beyond me, but very telling all the same.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174:4761163 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > There's really no use denying now what you said before, about men expressing their feeling. You said 'general' which I would say is a rather propoportionate 'subset'.
> ...



Okay

You stated friendzoned guys were bullied and mocked.
You stated not all guys complained about not having sex or express entitlement
You stated not all guys complain or blame her
You stated they don't get the same courtesy as (all) women get, who 'only' get positive response, unlike the guys who also seek for advice and are afraid they are going to be hurt.
You stated guys here are bullied for having feelings in general.
You changed that to a subset of the people here. (and that's just one contradiction)

Now. CITATION NEEDED

See, you are moralizing and accusing here, you question judgement and unfair sexist treatment, neglecting or invalidating feelings, and bullying. 

And while I am sure not all who have been friendzoned complain about it, feel entitled, blame her, etc. I asked you to show me where those guys who express their feelings and who are afraid to break their heart, and don't complain, don't blame her, don't implicitely express entitlement, are being bullied.

You haven't and you can't because it simply doesn't happen on the scale you are suggesting, not even a significant subset. 

Which is odd because since you are taking the high road, surely you must have responded when you witnessed this shameful injustice and bullying. Don't you remember protecting those poor guys?


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

R.I.P tact


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

"Friendzoned" -- Poor mate selection.

"Fuckzoned" -- Poor mate selection.


----------



## Space Ryder (Oct 3, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I'm honestly not a big fan of either concept.
> 
> A man who complains about friendzoning is *essentially complaining about not getting sex*
> 
> ...



Oh the irony of thou theorem.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Space Ryder said:


> Oh the irony of thou theorem.


Not all men complain about friendzoning, so I was technically only stereotyping men that like to use that term. 

The way I see it, the use of that term implies that they see a friendship as unsatisfactory because they wanted "more," and the more would usually include sex. Not that it's wrong for them to want it, but that's a pretty lousy way of expressing it. Why not just say, "I'm disappointed she doesn't like me," rather than use language that implies that something was done to them?

Men that _don't_ complain about friendzoning are fine. xD

EDIT: You DO realize it would be "thy theorem" and not "thou theorem," right? At least _learn_ Early Modern English if you're going to use it pretentiously.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

who gives a shit if some guy complains about it? just don't let it happen to you and move on with your life.


----------



## Space Ryder (Oct 3, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> EDIT: You DO realize it would be "thy theorem" and not "thou theorem," right? At least _learn_ Early Modern English if you're going to use it pretentiously.


Yeah, I probably should. English just isn't my native language so, but I'll try my best.


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> "Friendzoned" -- Poor mate selection.
> 
> "Fuckzoned" -- Poor mate selection.


This x100. 

It's no one's fault but your own, learn to keep them as a friend or a fuckbuddy and move onto something more substantial instead of rolling over the topic repeatedly hoping for different results. Sounds a bit like insanity to me but to each man and woman their cup of tea.


----------

