zz9-plural-z-alpha:
mach-2 comments on Whenever ‘friendzoned’ people whines about how girls go to them with problems.
siryouarebeingmocked:
**Fuck!** Alright here goes nothing. The friendzone is a synonym for unrequited love. The friendzone is also a synonym for being taken advantage of. …
The friendzone is a synonym for unrequited love. The friendzone is also a synonym for being taken advantage of.
When ever the friendzone gets brought up on Reddit, it seems the common argument is “Nice GuysTM” or “I’m not a slot machine were you put niceness coins in and sex pops out”. Most of these arguments are brought up by “Mature for my age” kids or kids in their 20’s who never quite got out of the highschool/college dating mentality. Since when did being nice in return for having a shot at someone become “Nice Guy” mentality? When the fuck did sex become something a woman gives to a man? IIRC it’s a mutual act of pleasure for both parties involved. In the same vein one could argue that “I’m not some emotional shelter for you to pop coins in and comfort comes out!”… but then I’d be a dumbass for saying that wouldn’t I?
Fair point, if a guy asks a girl out and vice versa, the person at the other end has the right to decline. The asker is meant to abide by the wishes of the “askee” so to speak. We’ve all agreed they’re friends up to this point right? Why then is it not expected of the askee to be mature enough to understand the change in the dynamic of the relationship?
Are we all willing to ignore the different friendship circumstances that could lead to someone saying they’re friendzoned?
How hard is it not to understand the point of view of the rejected?
If you tell me your secrets, cry on my shoulder, run to me for help, hangout with me more often than not, how hard is it to not comprehend that I may want to take things further.
The friendzone argument seems to stem from the fact that some people complain after getting shot down. For fucks sake, the askers have feelings. They followed the age long rules of courting, step by fucking step and yet things didn’t work out. Admittedly some people take the gripes and grieving process too far. On the other end of the spectrum, some people take full advantage of the emotional canopy their “friends” offer, such which are akin to couples in a committed relationship. Are we then going to sit back and lambaste those who get rejected solely for them being and admitting to be dissatisfied with rejection?
Slowclap.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding at the base of the argument I see people having over the “friendzone” and I think it’s because they’ve defined the term differently.
People on the girl’s side (could be a guy to, but I’m trying to keep it simple) see the friendzone as the last resort of that guy who will just not take no for an answer. The one who asks, gets turned down, and then keeps pushing, asking again, whining to their friends about how they’ve been deprived of something that’s owed to them. No body likes to feel like a prize or an object to be awarded to someone.
People on the other side of the argument are describing the friendzone as somewhere they have been kept, maliciously, by the object of their desire. They see themselves as having been led on by someone who only wants to take advantage of them, and is keeping them in suspense for this reason.
The difference between the two, I believe, is communication. In the first instance, the girl (or boy, idk) has communicated, they believe, that they’re not interested. In the second, they have not.
This could be for one of several reasons, two of which are obvious:
1. She actually is keeping her suitor in suspense for fun/profit. This is an unhealthy relationship, get out while you can.
2. She is unable or unwilling to communicate her disinterest, typically because they simply doesn’t know *how* to say no without ruining a friendship they value and hurting a person they like.
Anyway, that’s what I’ve gotten out of it. Any thoughts?
>People on the girl’s side (could be a guy to, but I’m trying to keep it simple) see the friendzone as the last resort of that guy who will just not take no for an answer. The one who asks, gets turned down, and then keeps pushing, asking again, whining to their friends about how they’ve been deprived of something that’s owed to them. No body likes to feel like a prize or an object to be awarded to someone.
No, they make pretty much the same comments whether the guy has been actively rejected or not. If he’s “whining” about kohai not noticing him, so to speak, then he just just “man up” and face rejection. If he’s rejected, he should just “man up” and move on. Under no circumstances is the guy - and they almost always gender the term - allowed to complain. Some have even said that women are entitled to kindness, without noticing the hypocrisy. Some will declare the friendzone a “myth”, usually based on their assumption that any guy complaining about it feels “entitled”.
>People on the other side of the argument are describing the friendzone as somewhere they have been kept, maliciously, by the object of their desire. They see themselves as having been led on by someone who only wants to take advantage of them, and is keeping them in suspense for this reason.
Malice is not inherent in the use of the term. It’s being described as a bad place to be in, yes, but that doesn’t necessarily assume malice. And being “led on” is also not inherent. Usage of the term includes such definitions, but isn’t limited to them.
The first group, of course, has a number of reasons to rationalize and straw man what people are actually saying. Most telling is the conflation of the “friendzone” with “Nice Guys™”. Real nice guys, lowercase, are basically described as not complaining about their treatment in any way.
You may be noticing a theme here.
Over to you, Karen.
