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

[FieryTrainwreck]

"Friendzone" absolutely did not start out as a misogynistic term of objectification. It was clearly a comedic take on "unrequited love". The meaning of the word has obviously changed over time, and this thread seems to be a clash between those embracing the more recent connotations and those clinging to the original, more light-hearted definition.

It's all semantics. There's really no argument here. You could never judge the character of a person by his or her usage of the word without significant context. Even saying "I've been friendzoned" doesn't necessarily imply fault on the part of the rejector; the universe, or fate, might be the actor in this case. Star-crossed, anyone?

Anyways, I don't think the term carries anywhere near enough strict baggage to be on level with gay or racist slurs. I also think, if you're wanting to very safely convey your situation without tripping all the politically correct lasers, you'd maybe steer clear of the word. Thankfully, I tend to associate with people who don't jump down my throat because they know I'm not a misogynist.

 

[Phasmal]

We probably could if people stopped using it as a nasty way to blame the other person for not being attracted to them and an easy way to get sympathy.

Until that happens, I find it hard to take people who say they were `friendzoned` seriously. If they don't like the connotations of that word, they could just say `I liked X but they don't like me back`.

 

[MammothBlade]

The friendzone is a myth, and this thread is a joke.

 

[Nicaragua7]

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.

Question: What makes you assume that the worst case answer is always the correct one when someone takes rejection hard?

- They could feel deeply embarrassed (even to an irrational level).

- They could find that being around someone they've been rejected by that they have very strong feeling for makes them obsess over their own flaws; and need to find a way to deal with that first.

- They could believe that the post-tension between them and their crush is straining things more.

What makes any of these possibilities less likely in your eyes? Unless you know the person very well (but why stick around someone you dislike so much?); or have been heavily included in their relationship, you can't possibly know their thought processes.

How is dealing with any feelings of anger away from other people an evil thing? I've never heard of anyone who can control their emotions like a fuseboard. Finding non-destructive ways to deal with your emotions is a smart thing.


Also, call me a hypocrite for being cynical too, but I strongly suspect there's a lot of truth to this statement:

But no, this is the internet, and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing in the most arrogant, condescending, insulting way possible.

OT: Yeah, I agree with you, OP, I always thought 'friendzone' was just a word that painted a picture of a Venn diagram; where the unrequited party wasn't in the section marked 'Friend and Potential Romantic Interest'. I don't understand the rationale behind making demonising assumptions about someone based on the use a single word. Do people skim read the advice forums for key words to pick out people to berate, or what?

 

[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?

Probably for the same reason that white guys using the term "******" are implied to be racists. Or a straight guy calling someone a "queer" is implied to be a homophobe. The term has baggage. You know now it has baggage. If you insist on continuing to use it, you can't hardly complain that people read the standard baggage into it. Sort of like how if I went around calling my 1995 Honda Civic a "sports car" I don't really have the right to complain if people get the wrong idea about what I drive.

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.

Let me ask you a couple questions: Who "friendzoned" you? Who "placed you in the friendzone"?

I think I see what your getting at, but I will counter with this. Yes, if I have a crush on a girl, and she sees me as only a friend she would be the one who "put me in the friend zone". Its clear that she is the actor in this situation, as it only involves two people, and I have nothing to do with deciding how she feels about me, outside of our interactions. That doesn't imply that its some moral fault, emotions aren't controllable, or else anyone in the friendzone would just switch a few knobs and not have a crush on the person anymore. Unless I am off base and you meant it more like "you" as in me, personally.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

On a side note, I kinda don't like how whenever people who don't like the term try and depict people who do they tend to characterize them as wanting sex, and nothing else (theres tons of examples of this in this forum, but its late and I am feeling too lazy to look). I don't think that is accurate. In my view they generally want a romantic relationship, which will hopefully include sex. They want to date someone, not just a hookup. I know that "you just want to get your knob wet" sounds better as a insult, but still I feel its a bit of a mischaracterization.

That's just the unfortunate colloquial interpretation of friendzone. It's not entirely a characterisation because thats what people have been using it for .

Now, I'm not sure how old you are. I think at at my age of 20 the common use of friendzone doesn't necessarily imply wanting sex because not everyone is out getting it; people are still living with their parents and everything. I can see the meaning changing significantly by the time I reach 30. So bear that in mind, it's what I was asking BloatedGuppy earlier.

The example you posted sounds a hell of a lot like unrequited love, and I don't think anyone would be right in getting bent out of shape about it.

The turning point will always be whether or not the girl is blameworthy in the situation , and whether or not the person using the term friendzone is trying to lay blame or any other negative trait on the girl . Which is where people, understandably, have a big issue. Women, while constantly being reminded that they should stay pure and innocent, shouldn't be chastised for not putting out just to satisfy a crush. But you probably realise this.

I used my leading on example to try and illustrate that rule. The girl there is clearly blameworthy. It might have been a bit extreme. But the general rule stands.

In your example, it doesn't sound like you would be blaming the girl (it just sounds like you would be fawning over her in a big way). And most of us have been there. I think, because of the colloquial meaning of friendzone, you wouldn't be doing *yourself* credit in any way, since it's such a raw, emotional feeling to have a deep crush like that. Using slang might seem a bit out of place. And notice you didn't actually use the word "friendzone" at any point in that example.

Hell, I know I did two years of cadet training in high school to be near a girl I had a crush on. Fucking silly, really.

But yeah, it would be nice if we could all get along. This forum is a hell of a lot less antagonistic than most other gaming forums though, so there's that.

Well as for the laying blame thing, the word portrays the girl (and its usually a girl) as the actor in the situation. SHE friendzoned ME. But that is because she is clearly the closest thing to a actor the situation has. She is the one who mentally marked the guy as being only a friend, not a romantic interest, it wasn't his choice. So to say that the girl put the guy in the friendzone is accurate, she is the one whose emotions resulted in friendship but no romance. This certainly doesn't imply moral fault, no one can control their own emotions, or else the friendzone would never need to be a issue. But the "blame" is clearly on the girl, if either person can be described as needing blame.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

[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'.

I know "chillax" because my gf has a teen sis who uses it all the time. Mansplain, though?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

[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'.

I know "chillax" because my gf has a teen sis who uses it all the time. Mansplain, though?

Educate yourself, whelp. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mansplain]


I think it's lame.

Hella lame.

 

[Vegosiux]

[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'.

I know "chillax" because my gf has a teen sis who uses it all the time. Mansplain, though?

But won't chilling make my ax brittle and not suited for lumberjacking, so I won't be able to get wood?

...I wonder if I could have stuffed any more double entendtes into that one.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

[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'.

I know "chillax" because my gf has a teen sis who uses it all the time. Mansplain, though?

Educate yourself, whelp. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mansplain]


I think it's lame.

Hella lame.

That was an incredibly depressing trip to the dictionary. Everything Orwell imagined about Newspeak is true.

 

[Caiphus]

Well as for the laying blame thing, the word portrays the girl (and its usually a girl) as the actor in the situation. SHE friendzoned ME. But that is because she is clearly the closest thing to a actor the situation has. She is the one who mentally marked the guy as being only a friend, not a romantic interest, it wasn't his choice. So to say that the girl put the guy in the friendzone is accurate, she is the one whose emotions resulted in friendship but no romance. This certainly doesn't imply moral fault, no one can control their own emotions, or else the friendzone would never need to be a issue. But the "blame" is clearly on the girl, if either person can be described as needing blame.

There's a difference between making someone the active subject of a verb and blaming them for the situation. And in most circumstances the desired party is absolutely blameless.

And in terms of factual causation, i.e. but for the girl's emotions, the situation would not have happened; you could say the exact same about the man's emotions as well. If it wasn't for his crush on the girl, it would be a normal friendship, instead of an imbalance.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Well as for the laying blame thing, the word portrays the girl (and its usually a girl) as the actor in the situation. SHE friendzoned ME. But that is because she is clearly the closest thing to a actor the situation has. She is the one who mentally marked the guy as being only a friend, not a romantic interest, it wasn't his choice. So to say that the girl put the guy in the friendzone is accurate, she is the one whose emotions resulted in friendship but no romance. This certainly doesn't imply moral fault, no one can control their own emotions, or else the friendzone would never need to be a issue. But the "blame" is clearly on the girl, if either person can be described as needing blame.

There's a difference between making someone the active subject of a verb and blaming them for the situation. And in most circumstances the desired party is absolutely blameless.

And in terms of factual causation, i.e. but for the girl's emotions, the situation would not have happened; you could say the exact same about the man's emotions as well. If it wasn't for his crush on the girl, it would be a normal friendship, instead of an imbalance.

Then if we ever create a verb meaning "to think of a friend in a romantic light" ending with zone we can use the man as the active subject of that. "he girlfriend/romancezoned me" maybe? But saying that "a girl friendzoned me." doesn't imply blame. Just that its her thoughts about you you are talking about.

 

[Caiphus]

Then if we ever create a verb meaning "to think of a friend in a romantic light" ending with zone we can use the man as the active subject of that. "he girlfriend/romancezoned me" maybe? But saying that "a girl friendzoned me." doesn't imply blame. Just that its her thoughts about you you are talking about.

Well, you're talking about both. You have both the guy's thoughts and the girl's. If both parties wanted friendship, and nothing more, it's not like they're both friendzoning each other. Or are they? I don't think I'm friendzoning my guy mates, unless there's something they aren't telling me.

I mean, it's a synonym for unrequited love or unreturned feelings, is it not? And for that to be true, you need the love or feelings in the first place. Just because the term includes the word "friend" doesn't mean it's a one-way system.

In any case, I'm sure I've romancezoned my girlfriend. There's no way she could possibly want to get anywhere near my sweaty self.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Then if we ever create a verb meaning "to think of a friend in a romantic light" ending with zone we can use the man as the active subject of that. "he girlfriend/romancezoned me" maybe? But saying that "a girl friendzoned me." doesn't imply blame. Just that its her thoughts about you you are talking about.

Well, you're talking about both. You have both the guy's thoughts and the girl's. If both parties wanted friendship, and nothing more, it's not like they're both friendzoning each other. Or are they? I don't think I'm friendzoning my guy mates, unless there's something they aren't telling me.

I mean, it's a synonym for unrequited love or unreturned feelings, is it not? And for that to be true, you need the love or feelings in the first place. Just because the term includes the word "friend" doesn't mean it's a one-way system.

In any case, I'm sure I've romancezoned my girlfriend. There's no way she could possibly want to get anywhere near my sweaty self.

Well, it is generally a synonym for unrequited love. In the case of it simply being called friendzoned, context matters here. Its mostly the question of why being seen as a friend and only a friend would be at all notable, unless your goal was something more than friendship? And theres lots of words that don't mean what they should based on their root-words... they are just normally in latin. Like pedophile. Lover of children. It doesn't necessarily imply sexual lust, just affection. Yet we understand it to mean sexual attraction in a way that we don't understand, say, bibliophile.

 

[Caiphus]

Well, it is generally a synonym for unrequited love. In the case of it simply being called friendzoned, context matters here. Its mostly the question of why being seen as a friend and only a friend would be at all notable, unless your goal was something more than friendship? And theres lots of words that don't mean what they should based on their root-words... they are just normally in latin. Like pedophile. Lover of children. It doesn't necessarily imply sexual lust, just affection. Yet we understand it to mean sexual attraction in a way that we don't understand, say, bibliophile.

We're heading into dangerous etymology territory here, now. I'm not sure if I can continue. Latin made me rather unhappy for three years in high school.

And exactly. Friendship isn't really notable if there aren't any hidden desires within either party. We're about to go full circle, though, I believe.

Friendzoning requires two things:
a) That the guy wants romantic or sexual relations, and;
b) That the girl does not, but is usually happy with continuing the status quo because, well, that's what she signed up for.

The common interpretation, which you took issue with, was that the term is misogynistic. You claim it should just be used to describe the above situation. Which, whatever, I can see that.

The obstacle is that the common interpretation is that the woman is blamed , held morally responsible for the man's hurt feelings, or assigned negative traits. For example - being a manipulative harpy or a prude. Because that's what is has been used, by men, to mean. And people take issue with that, clearly, because a woman shouldn't be blamed for wanting friendship if that was what she was told would happen.

I say that context is important - as long as it's clear that no negative traits are being imparted to the female in the situation then you can get away with using the term "friendzone". I still think it's a dumb word, but whatever. So is fan-dabby-dosey and I use that all the time.

So, are we in disagreement on anything?

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Well, it is generally a synonym for unrequited love. In the case of it simply being called friendzoned, context matters here. Its mostly the question of why being seen as a friend and only a friend would be at all notable, unless your goal was something more than friendship? And theres lots of words that don't mean what they should based on their root-words... they are just normally in latin. Like pedophile. Lover of children. It doesn't necessarily imply sexual lust, just affection. Yet we understand it to mean sexual attraction in a way that we don't understand, say, bibliophile.

We're heading into dangerous etymology territory here, now. I'm not sure if I can continue. Latin made me rather unhappy for three years in high school.

And exactly. Friendship isn't really notable if there aren't any hidden desires within either party. We're about to go full circle, though, I believe.

Friendzoning requires two things:
a) That the guy wants romantic or sexual relations, and;
b) That the girl does not, but is usually happy with continuing the status quo because, well, that's what she signed up for.

The common interpretation, which you took issue with, was that the term is misogynistic. You claim it should just be used to describe the above situation. Which, whatever, I can see that.

The obstacle is that the common interpretation is that the woman is blamed , held morally responsible for the man's hurt feelings, or assigned negative traits. For example - being a manipulative harpy or a prude. Because that's what is has been used, by men, to mean. And people take issue with that, clearly, because a woman shouldn't be blamed for wanting friendship if that was what she was told would happen.

I say that context is important - as long as it's clear that no negative traits are being imparted to the female in the situation then you can get away with using the term "friendzone". I still think it's a dumb word, but whatever. So is fan-dabby-dosey and I use that all the time.

So, are we in disagreement on anything?

No, that seems about right. though, now I must ask, what does fan-dabby-dosey mean? Is it a combination of other words?

 

[Caiphus]

No, that seems about right. though, now I must ask, what does fan-dabby-dosey mean? Is it a combination of other words?

Fantastic.

And it can mean whatever you want it to mean. I take it as a cross between fantastic and stupendous.

 

[Smeatza]

I mean in the sense that the people who actually use the term "friendzone" with a straight face seem to be labouring under the baffling misconception that women's brains actually sort their male acquaintances into "sex zones" and "friend zones".

First, a literal interpretation of absurdist jokes, now a literal interpretation of a metaphor?
I hope you're playing ignorant here.

"******" is not inherently a sexual slur, it is a word that means "bundle of sticks". It became a slur when everyone started using it as such. Does that mean that it's fine to go around yelling "faggots!" because it doesn't, according to the original definition, have any inherent negative connotations?

****** also refers to a type of meatball.
It's not an apt example anyway seen as ****** as a slur for homosexuals started out as something only radicals (by today's standards) used but then became mainstream. Friendzone as a sexist concept is still something only radicals use.
Like I've already shown, the negative connotations are not inherent.

Correction, that is one use of the term "friendzone",

Progress

from an episode that was aired over a decade ago, before the use of the term became popular. As with the above example, you may as well be showing me a text from the 15th century that uses the term "faggots" to mean "bundle of sticks" and saying, "Look, this proves that it isn't a homophobic word."

Before the term became popular? Are you aware just how long it has existed?
It seems to me it's just as popular as it's ever been, the term is just used by a younger crowd that is more familiar with the internet these days.

In any case, the term "gamer" has negative connotations. "Gamers" are known to be immature, weak, shy, ugly, nerdy, etc. etc.
In a few cases, these negative connotations are correct, but not in most of them.
Only the ignorant think these connotations apply to all incidences, or that they are inherent to the term.
It's the same thing.