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

[Dr. Doomsduck]

Let me just put it this way: if I were a woman, I'd stay far, far away from any guy using the word "friendzone" or, worse, "friendzoned" seriously.

Words have baggage and you can't choose for yourself how others will see it. Yeah, maybe the guy talking about friendzone is not a douchebag like many others who use the term, but I wouldn't risk it.

So you can think all is rainbows and use the word all you want, but understand the consequences. Many people will have an immediate reaction of associating you with all the mysoginistic bullshit that is spouted by other guys who use the term friendzone, and if you don't like the baggage just don't use the word.

This is also relevant:
http://vimeo.com/64941331

I am a woman, and I do stay FAAAAR away from men who use the word Friendzone.

Also, that film is very disturbing...I like it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The shaming is the bad stuff. I don't know about you, but being generalized and having assumptions made about you to satisfy people's post hoc rationalizations of you being a bad person isn't something I'd qualify as "good".

And yes, assuming they're just butthurt over not getting sex and that they're a bad person for making their own decision to reject a relationship they do not want seems quite common. As if people generally expect that a romantically rejected party should carry on with the friendship, that making a different choice is out of the norm, that it's something only a scumbag would do. Insinuating that they had a superficial, shallow agenda ("They were perfectly willing to be friends until they were told there wasn't going to be any sex").

If there's no obligation to carry on with a relationship one does not want, why would they be called out on choosing not to otherwise? If it was assumed to be a completely viable, rational, acceptable decision, why would people take issue?

I see censure being specifically applied to the use of the word "friend zone", because of the associations that have become married to it. That women SPECIFICALLY "friend zone" men. That the parameters of the zone make it specifically a "no sex" zone. That there is an entitlement to payoff after all the effort put into the courtship. To quote the first entry in the urban dictionary:

"I spent all that money on a date, just to find out she put me in the Friend Zone(said with eerie echo)."

And from the second entry:

"Well why the fuck did I waste two months on you?"

There's been an effort in this thread to disassociate the term from this mentality and return it to being a cheerful synonym for unrequited love, but that just results in the reason for the backlash against it getting lost.

There's a specific TYPE of individual who self-identifies as a "nice guy" and moans about not getting a sex reward for all their niceness. That is the behavior/mentality I see getting shamed. I don't see this universal castigation of every victim of unrequited love. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, or not looking in the right places. As Oswald helpfully quote mined, there are certainly people here and there who believe friendship is a sacred duty and you should just smother your ardor and soldier on, but I remain unconvinced it is a commonplace phenomenon.

 

[DugMachine]

What I don't get is why when confronting people "in the friendzone" everyone turns into a raging asshat. These are usually damaged people desperate for affection and feeling down over their loneliness. The best way to explain that they're misunderstanding how relationships work and form is not "You Mysoginist scumbag just in it for the sex, you're a pathetic child". If you actually talk to them with a bit of kindness and respect, you might actually inform them of something, make them feel better, change a mind, improve the world an infinitesimal amount. But no, this is the internet, and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing in the most arrogant, condescending, insulting way possible.

This. I'm of the mind that one should move on after getting "friendzoned" but not everyone deals with rejection equally. Unless this person is lashing out and trying to harm or harass the girl (or guy) who friendzoned them, then let them sulk for a while and try to comfort them.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm of the mind that one should move on after getting "friendzoned" but not everyone deals with rejection equally. Unless this person is lashing out and trying to harm or harass the girl (or guy) who friendzoned them, then let them sulk for a while and try to comfort them.

Eh. I spent a long time in my early 20's having short, disastrous relationships and experiencing a chain of painful rejections. I got a lot of comfort from my friends, and fancied myself a sad and put upon fellow, and all it resulted in was me developing a proper little resentment-fueled misogynistic streak that didn't clear up until I was almost 30. I actually think the WORST thing you can do for a friend post breakup is offer them unconditional comfort. Breakups or rejections can and should be learning experiences, and letting people stew in the juices of self pity or recrimination is seldom helpful.

Mind you, it's your friend. You're still going to be nice about it and give them a shoulder to cry on. I'm just being contrary BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I DO.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I'm of the mind that one should move on after getting "friendzoned" but not everyone deals with rejection equally. Unless this person is lashing out and trying to harm or harass the girl (or guy) who friendzoned them, then let them sulk for a while and try to comfort them.

Eh. I spent a long time in my early 20's having short, disastrous relationships and experiencing a chain of painful rejections. I got a lot of comfort from my friends, and fancied myself a sad and put upon fellow, and all it resulted in was me developing a proper little resentment-fueled misogynistic streak that didn't clear up until I was almost 30. I actually think the WORST thing you can do for a friend post breakup is offer them unconditional comfort. Breakups or rejections can and should be learning experiences, and letting people stew in the juices of self pity or recrimination is seldom helpful.

Mind you, it's your friend. You're still going to be nice about it and give them a shoulder to cry on. I'm just being contrary BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I DO.

For some reason your response makes me think that perhaps the true measure of a self proclaimed "nice guy" is actually how he treats other men, especially when women aren't around, since this eliminated the "ulterior motives based around sex" idea. Then again if the "nice guy" is bisexual this all goes to hell.
Edit: Anyone else getting a add for something called "the Sub" blocking half of the type box?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's a bit like the "YOLO" craze. You could argue that "you only live once" is a useful philosophy to live by, but it's sort of become tainted by the number of people who yell it before setting their butts on fire or similar acts of silliness.

YOLO should always precede sensible, cautious behavior. Like buckling your seat belt, or starting a low fat, high fiber diet.

 

[Overusedname]

Good golly gosh the internet's been talking about this for a while.

I don't have much to add, other than I have no idea what the term first meant or means, just that it's an empty term with little logical sentiment behind it that oversimplifies relationships into a point system and an 'off and on' switch between friend and lover.

Don't see the benefit of continuing to use the term.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Let me just put it this way: if I were a woman, I'd stay far, far away from any guy using the word "friendzone" or, worse, "friendzoned" seriously.

Words have baggage and you can't choose for yourself how others will see it. Yeah, maybe the guy talking about friendzone is not a douchebag like many others who use the term, but I wouldn't risk it.

So you can think all is rainbows and use the word all you want, but understand the consequences. Many people will have an immediate reaction of associating you with all the mysoginistic bullshit that is spouted by other guys who use the term friendzone, and if you don't like the baggage just don't use the word.

This is also relevant:
http://vimeo.com/64941331

I am a woman, and I do stay FAAAAR away from men who use the word Friendzone.

Also, that film is very disturbing...I like it.

I think that's what it comes down to. If I'm talking to a guy and he starts complaining about how he's been friendzoned, it literally sets off a system of red flags and alarm bells in my head, because I know the kind of people who tend to use that word, and how they tend to use it.

It's a bit like the "YOLO" craze. You could argue that "you only live once" is a useful philosophy to live by, but it's sort of become tainted by the number of people who yell it before setting their butts on fire or similar acts of silliness.

Well, I can hardly change your ideas on this, but I would suggest you try and see what they mean by the word, since if they are using the word in the context of "unrequited romantic feelings in a friendship" then they hardly deserve to be judged for it. The usage of a single word rarely is a window to a persons character.

 

[DrOswald]

I can't point to scientific peer reviewed studies from reputable journals on the crazy shit people get up to while courting if that is what you are asking. All I can go off of is what I have observed. However, I would be willing to check out any such studies you could point me to that prove your stance.

We are just having a casual conversation, I don't need you to aggressively source your opinions. I was just hoping for more than anecdotal bias.

Well, there really isn't much between anecdotal evidence and sourced citation. Because everything that isn't sourced citation is pretty much anecdotal. It is all "I once knew someone who ..." or "It only makes sense that because..." and none of that really means anything certain when not properly analyzed.

In terms of supporting my own conjecture that the male gender role includes them assuming the role of the sexual aggressor, I could point you to any number of articles. That's a lot of work though. How about Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role

That's as much effort as I think either of us wants to put into this. =)

I agree that in traditional gender roles the male is expected to initiate and push forward the relationship. But that is not what you said.

"Due to societal norms/expectations arising from gender roles, women are far less likely to engage in elaborate courtship behavior that can result in miscommunications and/or a sense of entitlement to some kind of return on investment."

I will agree that women are far less likely to engage in the particular courtship behavior of the aggressor and are thus much less likely to be "friendzoned", but your statement was far more general than that and I read it literally.

If anything, because the female is not traditionally the aggressor she must engage in more courtship behaviors that are likely to cause miscommunication and a sense of entitlement. Because the traditional role of the woman does not allow her to plainly state "I want to be in a sexual relationship with you" she must instead indirectly attract the man. The traditional woman must drop hints and subtle signals. And she must not appear to be too eager (lest she be considered "easy".) And because no two women will have the same idea of how to go about dropping hints or subtly suggesting romance it is very easy for men to misinterpret the signals given. A woman, after spending much time and energy trying to attract a man, might become angry at the man for missing the hints. I have seen this often. I have been the man oblivious to the hints. I have been lectured by women for hurting their friends when I ignored advances I had no idea were occurring.

Of course, that is all just how I see it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well you can use it around normal people but in the world of spazzy internet folk(as clearly displayed in this very thread) you should always keep a list of things that will cause flamewars, and it's not that people actually believe what they yammer on about they just want to be part of a herd.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

Again, the term has had a significant backlash because of its sexist connotations. It is the idea that all mens sexual and romantic needs must be met eventually after the women acknowledges how wonderful/charming they are, or they'll throw a hissy fit because the girl is 'denying' them what they think they deserve 'because they're such nice guys'.

I'm glad people called bullshit across the web, it's a stupid concept. Unrequited love is something all people experience and the male in question doesn't have to pretend like it doesn't hurt him (I'm not saying all men who experience it are bad)...but making a point of shouting your sexual frustration from the rooftops (all over memebase) makes you look and sound entitled to the woman's attention.

At the risk of getting banned, I'll leave these pics up for my own brand of juvenile meme humor

http://wtfniceguys.tumblr.com/image/15814494698

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Again, the term has had a significant backlash because of its sexist connotations. It is the idea that all mens sexual and romantic needs must be met eventually after the women acknowledges how wonderful/charming they are, or they'll throw a hissy fit because the girl is 'denying' them what they think they deserve 'because they're such nice guys'.

I'm glad people called bullshit across the web, it's a stupid concept. Unrequited love is something all people experience and the male in question doesn't have to pretend like it doesn't hurt him (I'm not saying all men who experience it are bad)...but making a point of shouting your sexual frustration from the rooftops (all over memebase) makes you look and sound entitled to the woman's attention.

At the risk of getting banned, I'll leave these pics up for my own brand of juvenile meme humor

http://wtfniceguys.tumblr.com/image/15814494698

Sigh, again why does it always have to be the implication that all men who use the term friendzone are automatically douche-bags regardless of other actions? Again, its a term that means unrequited love with a close friendship, usually a male to a female, it doesn't have to mean anything else or have any other implications. It is a useful slang term, and we need to let go of the constant freakout over its usage in a perfectly fine situation. Again, I had a crush on a girl I was close friends with, she didn't have feelings for me, but wanted to continue our friendship and appreciated me as a friend. In other words I was "friendzoned" or placed in the "friendzone". That simple.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If anything, because the female is not traditionally the aggressor she must engage in more courtship behaviors that are likely to cause miscommunication and a sense of entitlement. Because the traditional role of the woman does not allow her to plainly state "I want to be in a sexual relationship with you" she must instead indirectly attract the man. The traditional woman must drop hints and subtle signals. And she must not appear to be too eager (lest she be considered "easy".) And because no two women will have the same idea of how to go about dropping hints or subtly suggesting romance it is very easy for men to misinterpret the signals given. A woman, after spending much time and energy trying to attract a man, might become angry at the man for missing the hints. I have seen this often. I have been the man oblivious to the hints. I have been lectured by women for hurting their friends when I ignored advances I had no idea were occurring.

It's an interesting observation. For my own part...if you'll permit me MY anecdotal experience...I've never caught hell from a woman for rejecting them or "friend zoning" them. And I was quite the stellar ass about it in a couple of situations and most definitely deserved to catch hell. I have, however, heard the sad song of the "nice guy" on many an occasion, and even spent a few years singing it myself. It seems to be a predominantly...if not necessarily uniquely...male behavior to bemoan "the friend zone".

Sigh, again why does it always have to be the implication that all men who use the term friendzone are automatically douche-bags regardless of other actions? Again, its a term that means unrequited love with a close friendship, usually a male to a female, it doesn't have to mean anything else or have any other implications.

And again, yes, it does. It might not according to your personal definition, but in common usage it most certainly does have those implications. The fact the entire thread is aware of and is discussing those implications is evidence enough of that, if you're unconvinced by the urban dictionary.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Let me just put it this way: if I were a woman, I'd stay far, far away from any guy using the word "friendzone" or, worse, "friendzoned" seriously.

Words have baggage and you can't choose for yourself how others will see it. Yeah, maybe the guy talking about friendzone is not a douchebag like many others who use the term, but I wouldn't risk it.

So you can think all is rainbows and use the word all you want, but understand the consequences. Many people will have an immediate reaction of associating you with all the mysoginistic bullshit that is spouted by other guys who use the term friendzone, and if you don't like the baggage just don't use the word.

This is also relevant:
http://vimeo.com/64941331

I am a woman, and I do stay FAAAAR away from men who use the word Friendzone.

Also, that film is very disturbing...I like it.

I think that's what it comes down to. If I'm talking to a guy and he starts complaining about how he's been friendzoned, it literally sets off a system of red flags and alarm bells in my head, because I know the kind of people who tend to use that word, and how they tend to use it.

It's a bit like the "YOLO" craze. You could argue that "you only live once" is a useful philosophy to live by, but it's sort of become tainted by the number of people who yell it before setting their butts on fire or similar acts of silliness.

Well, I can hardly change your ideas on this, but I would suggest you try and see what they mean by the word, since if they are using the word in the context of "unrequited romantic feelings in a friendship" then they hardly deserve to be judged for it. The usage of a single word rarely is a window to a persons character.

I'd vehemently disagree. People who use just one racial slur unironically end up on my immediate shit list.

Well there are exceptions, but a single word determining what you feel about a person is more than a little extreme, especially when it has multiple definitions.

 

[VortexCortex]

I'm really tired of the negative sexist connotations people are trying to attach to either the word or how someone takes the situation.

But that's the term. The term developed as an expression of those "negative sexist connotations". Don't blame the forum. Blame language. That's how the term evolved.

So... We're supposed to blame some nebulous social construct for attaching sexist connotations to a word that is gender neutral. I can agree with that, however, I think you wrongly blame Language. It's clearly not Language's fault, the term itself means: Friendship based on unreturned romantic feelings. We're supposed to not use the word because a segment of society has attached sexist connotations where none exist? The assumption that it's a sexist term is what I take issue with. I don't take issue with the word. I take issue with those who are being sexist by attaching the sexist connotation to a gender neutral term.

If we shouldn't use "Friendzone" because it has sexist connotation, then I blame the sexists who attached those connotations. Think about it. Folks using the term Friendzone are being shamed. Why are they being shamed? Is it because it makes a segment of the population uncomfortable? Why would this term make that segment uncomfortable? Why is it deserved of shame?

I think the term friendzone is apt. It's a zone of friendship where there is an undercurrent of unrequited love. Unrequited love itself is a different term than Friendzone. Unrequited love implies longing, but not friendship. Friendzone is uncomfortable term because those who say "we can still be friends" actually think that's fair. It's not. It's not fair to receive the benefits of friendship and courtship due primarily to unrequited love. This puts the one who has been "friendzoned" at a disadvantage to the one they love. This disparity in emotional investment can be, and is frequently, exploited.

People should not accept being a friend and providing all the benefits of friendship due only to a romantic advance.

Unrequited love is a love that is not returned. It does not imply a friendship that is built on disparity in emotional investment that unfairly favors the one who is being loved but does not reciprocate that love.

It's interesting that Friendzone is seen by some as Misogynistic term, and some say it is evidence of false entitlement to sex. No. It's entitlement to expect and exploit the benefit of friendship without investment in it due to a romantic advance.

"I don't like you that way, but we can be friends" -- Why is this acceptable by default? If the people were not already friends, then become friends based on a romantic advance, then it's an unequal relationship. Just being friends does not support Gender Equality in this type of relationship. Friendzone is a term that is used to express a disparity in Gender Equality. It's not misogyny unless its a male putting a female in the friendzone, and extracting benefit from her disproportionate emotional investment.

As previously mentioned, unrequited love really really sucks.

It sure does, but unrequited love is no longer synonymous with "friend zone".

You are correct. This is why we need the term Friendzone because "unrequited love" just doesn't cut it.

 

[DrOswald]

If anything, because the female is not traditionally the aggressor she must engage in more courtship behaviors that are likely to cause miscommunication and a sense of entitlement. Because the traditional role of the woman does not allow her to plainly state "I want to be in a sexual relationship with you" she must instead indirectly attract the man. The traditional woman must drop hints and subtle signals. And she must not appear to be too eager (lest she be considered "easy".) And because no two women will have the same idea of how to go about dropping hints or subtly suggesting romance it is very easy for men to misinterpret the signals given. A woman, after spending much time and energy trying to attract a man, might become angry at the man for missing the hints. I have seen this often. I have been the man oblivious to the hints. I have been lectured by women for hurting their friends when I ignored advances I had no idea were occurring.

It's an interesting observation. For my own part...if you'll permit me MY anecdotal experience...I've never caught hell from a woman for rejecting them or "friend zoning" them. And I was quite the stellar ass about it in a couple of situations and most definitely deserved to catch hell. I have, however, heard the sad song of the "nice guy" on many an occasion, and even spent a few years singing it myself. It seems to be a predominantly...if not necessarily uniquely...male behavior to bemoan "the friend zone".

I can agree with this statement. The "friend zone" in a traditionally male perspective on rejection. The closest traditional female equivalent is "guys don't notice me." It is a case of active vs passive rejection. Because (traditionally) males actively pursue a romantic/sexual relationship they are actively rejected by women, while women (traditionally) passively pursue such relationships and are therefore passively rejected by men.