Can We Just Use Friendzone to Describe a Situation, Please?

Recommended Videos

Lonewolfm16

New member
Feb 27, 2012
518
0
0
Ok, so first off, yes I know this is a oft discussed topic. But I was wondering what people thought about one particular facet of it, and if people are interested in discussing it, so be it. If you personally aren't, fine, but can we please not have a bunch of complaints that this is "another Friendzone thread" please? No one forced you here. Second, this is also a topic subject to alot of debate, so I request everyone keep things classy, and please don't let this devolve into a shouting match of insults.

So, that out of the way, I have a single question on the concept of the "friendzone". Now, there is generally in discussion on this topic, alot of complaints about misogyny and entitlement, and that "nice guys" are either pathetic losers too blind to see they are being used or manipulative bastards who feel entitled to sex for not being a scumbag. But this tends to show up even when the term friendzone isn't really being applied in that context. Why can't we simply use the term "friendzone" to describe a situation? Its a useful term, it doesn't need to come with excess baggage. If one person feels romantically for a friend of their and the other does not reciprocate, but does wish to continue being friends, then "friendzone" is a accurate description of that situation. And it is frustrating, and maddening, and depressing, and confusing and it sucks, and we can address that and understand it, it doesn't need to come with all this baggage.

Just because douchebags and misogynists use a word, doesn't mean we need to associate said word with them. If there was back-lash against words every time a douchebag co-opted their use their would be few words left in the english language. Also, on the subject of misogyny, why does the term need to be gendered in the first place? A female friend of mine used to have a crush on me. When this was semi-accidently revealed by a mutual friend of ours I told her I really liked her, but that I wasn't really interested in her romantically, but wanted to continue our friendship unaltered. When I confessed my crush on a different female friend, basically the exact same thing happened. Why should the situations be distinguished because of gender?

So, can we all just please use the word to mean one-way romantic feelings between friends, respect the utility of the term, and drop the extra baggage and implications that tend to come with it?
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Yeah. By this point it's like "Oh, you have totally human emotions regarding unrequited love, which let's face it, massively sucks as a feeling? WELL FUCK YOU YOU SEXIST PIG YOU SHOULD SOMEHOW FEEL NOTHING AT ALL INSTANTLY"

Of course, that isn't all people. Just like not all people that get friendzoned complain about it like they were entitled to something.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
[HEADING=1]Highway to the friend-a-zone![/HEADING]

I think the word needs to be banished within the annuls of other such ridiculous words, like 'chillax' and 'mansplain'.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Lonewolfm16 said:
Just because douchebags and misogynists use a word, doesn't mean we need to associate said word with them. If there was back-lash against words every time a douchebag co-opted their use their would be few words left in the english language.
Co-opted? Associate?

Was not "friendzone" developed by such people to mean such things? AFAIK, it's not a concept which has developed a negative meaning over time, that's all it ever was.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
I only dislike the people that (secretly) rage when being friend zoned, or that suddenly completely distance themselves from said friend after they were rejected. It's like they felt entitled to have those feelings reciprocated or only became friends with the other person for possibility of sex in the future.

Normally though, I don't see how the friend zone is so terrible. Sure, it starts to really suck if you've been friend zoned, say, 5 times in a row by different girls. But overall, it's just normal. Not every person you meet and that you're interested in is automatically also attracted to you.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Lonewolfm16 said:
Just because douchebags and misogynists use a word, doesn't mean we need to associate said word with them. If there was back-lash against words every time a douchebag co-opted their use their would be few words left in the english language.
Co-opted? Associate?

Was not "friendzone" developed by such people to mean such things? AFAIK, it's not a concept which has developed a negative meaning over time, that's all it ever was.
Yes, I seem to remember before those that seem to believe sex or relationships work on a points-based system, we just called feelings for someone that didn't reciprocate "bad luck". Then moved on and went to live normal, well-adjusted lives.
 

Spambot 3000

New member
Aug 8, 2011
713
0
0
It's just a really dumb word and I don't like it. I don't like seeing it, I don't like hearing it, I don't like it's existence.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
sanquin said:
I only dislike the people that (secretly) rage when being friend zoned, or that suddenly completely distance themselves from said friend after they were rejected. It's like they felt entitled to have those feelings reciprocated or only became friends with the other person for possibility of sex in the future.
Or maybe, y'know, they simply need some "me time" without the immediate reminder of what they just got hurt by so that they can recuperate and set new goals in their private lives without emotional distractions.

Just a possibility. Burning bridges is of course silly, but temporarily closing them to weather a storm isn't anything to get one's knickers in a twist over.

I also find it baffling how people cry "entitlement" when someone who was romantically rejected decides to take some time for themselves. It reeks of "Oh, they aren't entitled to a relationship they wants with me, but I am entitled to the relationship I want with them! How DARE they not give me that!"
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Vegosiux said:
I also find it baffling how people cry "entitlement" when someone who was romantically rejected decides to take some time for themselves. It reeks of "Oh, he isn't entitled to a relationship he wants with me, but I am entitled to the relationship I want with him! How DARE he not give me that!"
Because it's not very far from "they were willing to be friends, until they were told there wouldn't be any fucking".
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Because it's not very far from "they were willing to be friends, until they were told there wouldn't be any fucking".
[citation needed]

That's nothing but post hoc rationalization if you ask me.

Angie7F said:
"Not interested i you"?
Its not all the difficult really. lol
Yep, I agree, that's a lot clearer than "I'm so busy this week" and "I'm not sure I'm ready for a relationship".

See, if only everyone stopped beating around the bush, we'd get somewhere!
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
suasartes said:
Or we could just use "unrequited love," which is a perfectly accurate description and doesn't come with a history that's mostly associated with, well...






If you're going to take farcical and absurdist comedy seriously then nobody is going to take you seriously.
"Friend zone" has always been a slang term for "unrequited love." In my experience the sexism subtext is in the imaginations of those who would rather condemn those who are dealing unrequited love than empathise with them.

And since when was "as far as I know" a negative concept?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
suasartes said:
Lonewolfm16 said:
So, can we all just please use the word to mean one-way romantic feelings between friends, respect the utility of the term, and drop the extra baggage and implications that tend to come with it?
Or we could just use "unrequited love," which is a perfectly accurate description and doesn't come with a history that's mostly associated with, well...
But we don't get to whinge about how terribly, terribly unfair it all is.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
Anoni Mus said:
They distance themselves, because they get hurt being with someone they love who doesn't love back.

Is it that difficult to understand?
I don't believe in love happening that fast. You can have a crush on someone, or be infatuated by someone. But love doesn't happen like that. Try going on vacation together for 2 weeks, in a small 2 person tent, while driving everywhere yourself. If you two still think about each other the same way after that, THEN you love each other.

Vegosiux said:
Or maybe, y'know, they simply need some "me time" without the immediate reminder of what they just got hurt by so that they can recuperate and set new goals in their private lives without emotional distractions.

Just a possibility. Burning bridges is of course silly, but temporarily closing them to weather a storm isn't anything to get one's knickers in a twist over.

I also find it baffling how people cry "entitlement" when someone who was romantically rejected decides to take some time for themselves. It reeks of "Oh, they aren't entitled to a relationship they wants with me, but I am entitled to the relationship I want with them! How DARE they not give me that!"
I wasn't talking about 'taking some time for themselves' now was I? I was talking about...well, burning bridges as you put it. And about your last paragraph; If you were already friends beforehand, it's not entitlement to expect that friendship to continue, imo.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
Lonewolfm16 said:
We have a term for that.

Unrequited Love.

The Friend Zone is a world that has a lot of baggage now. That's it, really. The word has the baggage. All words have baggage. The baggage is what gives the words a meaning.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read down. Also...

thaluikhain said:
suasartes said:
Lonewolfm16 said:
So, can we all just please use the word to mean one-way romantic feelings between friends, respect the utility of the term, and drop the extra baggage and implications that tend to come with it?
Or we could just use "unrequited love," which is a perfectly accurate description and doesn't come with a history that's mostly associated with, well...
But we don't get to whinge about how terribly, terribly unfair it all is.
We sorta do. It is considered to be one of the worst feelings that there is, by some at least. So much poetry and music!

Then again, that's not really unfair because it goes both ways. The lack of the baggage just makes it a "Thing" which most humans go through at some point. And it is pretty shit!
 

Comocat

New member
May 24, 2012
382
0
0
I think its a word like "entitlement" or "casual gamer" that meant something at one point, but now is so misused it is sort of pointless. I think the concept of a friend zone exists, because I was stuck in it trying to get this girl, who is now my wife to date me, but the term has been coopted in such a broad fashion it's hard to be sympathetic to a guy who probably is just butthurt that a chick he talks too wont have sex with him. There are probably better ways to described unrequited love than the friend zone now.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
"Friendzone" was a colloquial adaptation of "Unrequited love". Like all colloquialisms, it never really had a formal definition, and thus is a lot more susceptible to "meaning drift" than other words. It's a much more hostile, sulking term than was perhaps intended in its original incarnation. Which is a shame, because I suspect the original intent was to get some lulz out of a painful situation. But what can you do? It is what it is.

Comocat said:
I think its a word like "entitlement"
The problem with entitlement was it was an actual word with an actual meaning and had been in use for hundreds of years, and morons started using it incorrectly because they were hot in their drawers to throw some thinly veiled insults. I have a lot more patience for people misusing or misunderstanding slang terminology than for people misusing long established language, for fairly obvious reasons. Yes, language is fluid, but it's not THAT fucking fluid, and lately way, way, way too many people are using "language is fluid!" as a crutch for ignorance of proper meaning.