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

[Smeatza]

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.

Wha? I'll expand further on.

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,

But she is practically responsible. Party A was rejected by Party B, Party A is now sad.

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.

Incorrect, moral blame and malicious outbursts are not only found in only a handful of cases, but are nothing to do with the friendzone.
If a white racist beats a black man to death with a dead cat, would dead cat's become racist?

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.

Told what would happen? (continuing from the top here). Most people when meeting others for the first time don't sit down and have a discussion about what aims and goals they have for their relationship and exactly what the other person should expect.
You meet, you see how things go, if the two parties imagined things would go differently there has been no attempt at fraud or change of contract. The female is not entitled to a friendship, just in the same way the male is not entitled to a romantic relationship.

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.

The problem I have is that feminists get enough flak for being political crackpots as it is. Sensationalist attempts to make neutral terms seem sexist hurts the cause.

 

[KOMega]

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.

that's all it ever was.

yup.

What I most didn't understand about the phrase was what was wrong with having friends?
I don't believe a pre-requisite to being my friend also means you must be willing to have sex with me.
Having friends is a good thing, y'know?

Again, its less the idea that having friends is bad, and more that unrequited love just generally sucks, and that it can be frustrating and confusing for you to have very strong feelings for someone and for them to really really like you as a friend but feel absolutely nothing romantic.

Maybe I've just never had this unrequited love thing before.
I've had crushes before but those were easy to let go of.

What I most didn't understand about the phrase was what was wrong with having friends?
I don't believe a pre-requisite to being my friend also means you must be willing to have sex with me.
Having friends is a good thing, y'know?

By extension, if you hold the view that it is a/the pre-requisite, then there's only one reason why you would want to associate with them. Which is something of a problem.

Well, that's not a good reason for getting friends then. If someone is lonely due to this reason, then the problem should be obvious. Or if not obvious, then an already established friend of the nonsexual relationship type should totally help that person out and explain shit.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

"Friendzone" was created with a negative connotation, so ya, it definitely comes with the negative baggage of the word.

My opinion is that if you're in the "friendzone", you're a sad, sad person. Seriously, what's wrong with having another friend? If you develop feelings for a friend, you can tell them, and if they reject you, then you move on. While staying their friend. Much easier to do than to cry about it.

Also, this is for the guys who need to wakeup and the girls who need the lulz: http://www.explosm.net/comics/3167/

C'mon man, don't be That Guy. That isn't how romantic feelings work. If you're in love with someone who doesn't reciprocate, that can rip the heart out of you. You can't just go 'OK, they don't love me back, time to find a new romantic partner'! Emotional scars can take time to heal. Hell, sometimes they don't.

OT: I think that friendzone is a term that should mean 'unrequited love', but thanks to the efforts of arseholes it is now irrevocably changed for the worse, as a term used to describe unrequited love/hate.

 

[Caiphus]

Snorp

If you'll excuse me, I'm not all that good at separating out quotes like that. Haven't quite learned it yet.

As to your dead cat example:
Clearly the cat isn't considered racist. The cat is a murder weapon. The friendzone is a colloquial term to describe a situation. If a colloquial term is used often enough to describe a situation, then it picks up whatever meaning has been ascribed to it by those who use it.

But yes, she is factually responsible. She is not, usually, morally responsible. There is a difference. Just like the dead cat is factually responsible for the death; it's not morally responsible. It couldn't do anything; it was dead.

And I've been led to believe that moral culpability is the common interpretation of the term friendzone. If you check the urbandictionary[footnote]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=friend%20zone[/footnote] (although, lol urbandictionary), I'm not far off. At the very least, the man is usually angry and resentful at the woman for rejecting him:

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

2. Guy:
"Well why the fuck did I waste two months on you?"

4. where women will piss and moan about not wanting to ruin a frendship, somehow overlooking the fact that guys already have friends, and so do they. Stupid bitches.

And so on.

Uuuuh, and yeah, "Being told that would happen" might have been a poor choice of words. But if a man's actions only suggest that all he wants to be is friends, then he can hardly act surprised if the woman becomes comfortable in that situation. He can try and ask her out if he wants, and he should! I fully support friendships turning into romantic relationships, it's fun. But if the woman doesn't want it, he shouldn't get angry. Disappointment is one thing, that's perfectly fine, and understandable. Resentment and blaming the woman isn't.

She isn't entitled to the friendship. Nobody is. Nobody is entitled to a part of your time if you don't want to give it to them (unless you work for them or something). It's just when you, like I said, assign negative traits to the woman for only wanting a friendship rather than to fuck, that you hit a problem.

And if the colloquial meaning of friendzone changes to mean something better, then that's splendid.
Because like I said; I too get annoyed when feminists jump on every usage of the word friendzone, as if the word must mean something nasty. I only say that it tends to mean something nasty, so you should be careful when using it.

 

[nomzy]

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.

There's a reason they completely distance themselves though. It's hard to move on if if you're still in love with them.
It's not friendship when one person is in love with the other.
I suppose I can only speak for myself here, but I would have dropped whatever I was doing to make time for her, didn't matter what - she was always more important.
That's not friendship*. It gets to the point where it's just really unhealthy, or at least it was for me.
Eventually I realised I had to move on and get my shit together and I could not have done that and stayed friends with her.
I couldn't ask her to be in a relationship with me because that's not how she felt, nor could I stay friends with her because that's not how I felt. We wanted different things.
As for the rage, I was never angry with her because we can't help how we feel and I understand that.

Maybe I never tried hard enough to move on while she was around, but I suppose part of me never wanted to while she was around. Nothing worth doing is ever easy eh?
I'm sure some people can do it, but not everyone. I don't know, it's not as simple as people think is all I'm trying to say.

Should look at these things on a case by case basis, even if the outline is pretty much the same every time.



*Don't misunderstand me here, I certainly make time for my friends and if it's important I will drop whatever I'm doing for them, but the distinction I'm trying to make here is that it didn't matter what it was, no matter how small that was what I would do.

Off-topic: How do you make footnotes and annotations? using * looks so ugly

 

[Abomination]

Today I learned many people in this thread are incapable of realizing a word can have different meanings when used in different contexts.

"I paid for her drinks but she wouldn't blow me, I got friendzoned so hard. That *****."

"We went out on a few dates but she decided to relegate me to the friendzone. Oh well."

If you think the first one is the same as the second one you do not understand context. I can explain in more detail if required, I hope it isn't.

 

[Ryotknife]

Snorp

If you'll excuse me, I'm not all that good at separating out quotes like that. Haven't quite learned it yet.

As to your dead cat example:
Clearly the cat isn't considered racist. The cat is a murder weapon. The friendzone is a colloquial term to describe a situation. If a colloquial term is used often enough to describe a situation, then it picks up whatever meaning has been ascribed to it by those who use it.

But yes, she is factually responsible. She is not, usually, morally responsible. There is a difference. Just like the dead cat is factually responsible for the death, it's not morally responsible. It couldn't do anything; it was dead.

And I've been led to believe that moral culpability is the common interpretation of the term friendzone. If you check the urbandictionary[footnote]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=friend%20zone[/footnote] (although, lol urbandictionary), I'm not far off. At the very least, the man is usually angry and resentful at the woman for rejecting him:

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

2. Guy:
"Well why the fuck did I waste two months on you?"

4. where women will piss and moan about not wanting to ruin a frendship, somehow overlooking the fact that guys already have friends, and so do they. Stupid bitches.

And so on.

Uuuuh, and yeah, "Being told that would happen" might have been a poor choice of words. But if a man's actions only suggest that all he wants to be is friends, then he can hardly act surprised if the woman becomes comfortable in that situation. He can try and ask her out if he wants, and he should! I fully support friendships turning into romantic relationships, it's fun. But if the woman doesn't want it, he shouldn't get angry. Disappointment is one thing, that's perfectly fine, and understandable. Resentment and blaming the woman isn't.

She isn't entitled to the friendship. Nobody is. Nobody is entitled to a part of your time if you don't want to give it to them (unless you work for them or something). It's just when you, like I said, assign negative traits to the woman for only wanting a friendship rather than to fuck, then you hit a problem.

And if the colloquial meaning of friendzone changes to mean something better, then that's splendid.
Because like I said; I too get annoyed when feminists jump on every usage of the word friendzone, as if the word must mean something nasty. I only say that it tends to mean something nasty, so you should be careful when using it.

the meaning behind words change, in the "friendzone" case the meaning was changed by a different group, a group not actually involved. It wasn't THAT long ago (like less than 10 years) that the common useage of friendzone was more or less "haha sucks to be you/me" (although perhaps not that harsh)


What is weird about how the meaning about friendzone has changed, is that the new definition is so specific that its usage is nearly non-existent compared to the old definition. Usually, definitions get broader. Its new definition is basically a guy who is trying to manipulate/feel entitled a woman into a relationship. Now don't get me wrong, ive known a few guys like that, however friendzone was NEVER used to describe their situation. "Creep", on the other hand, was.

What is also strange, is that the group that pushed for changing the definition behind friendzone the hardest also tend to be the ones who are resisting the changing definition of ...well lets just say another word whose definition has come under scrutiny lately, which is the very height of hypocrisy.

Now personally, I don't use the word friendzone like I used to, because the word has its meaning radically altered in recent years. It is still weird to see a word basically change itself out of existence.

 

[Caiphus]

What is weird about how the meaning about friendzone has changed, is that the new definition is so specific that its usage is nearly non-existent compared to the old definition. Usually, definitions get broader. Its new definition is basically a guy who is trying to manipulate/feel entitled a woman into a relationship. Now don't get me wrong, ive known a few guys like that, however friendzone was NEVER used to describe their situation. "Creep", on the other hand, was.

Well, they never would have called themselves "Creeps". Most people like that tend to think of themselves as pretty suave, I would imagine. For them, the friendzone is a way of describing their own romantic downfall in a way that puts the blame onto the woman.

Now, plenty of people do use the word ironically to mean "Get a load of how unlucky I am/that guy is".[footnote]http://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/5232012052423iwsmt.jpeg[/footnote] And I'd be perfectly happy for the meaning to be totally switched to that. I'm not sure if it was feminists who tried to get the meaning changed, I think it changed on its own when those "suave" types tried using it as a legitimate complaint that they weren't getting their dicks sucked on the regular. But I haven't been on the dating scene nearly long enough to know.

And like Abomination said above, you'll usually be able to tell with context whether someone is being a dick about things. Even on the internet, where subtext is rather elusive.

 

[Therumancer]

I've commented on this before, but to give a more literal analysis it would be something like this:

The term "Friendzone" and what it means is pretty obvious, it was terminology that was created for use by certain kinds of people in certain contexts and then fell into common usage and wound up becoming offensive to the people that were being targeted. In this case the term pretty much started with "Playas" or those who think they are, guys who are pretty much out to get laid and that's about it, the kind of mentality that literally views relationships as a sort of "game" (and indeed there is even a somewhat famous book called "The Game" dealing with this, which is in part what helped bring the term "player" into the mainstream vocabulary to the point it is now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secret_Society_of_Pickup_Artists ).

At any rate it's sort of like what "Jersey Shore" did for the term "Grenade". It was out there before that show, but it wasn't until "The Situation" started using the term, throwing it around, and even releasing apps like "Grenade Dodger" (which got him in trouble for using pictures of women who didn't realize they would be termed "grenades" when they gave him permission), that it became well known and an issue. For those who might not know a "Grenade" is the ugly girlfriend of an attractive girl who is out with her, getting rid of the grenade is part of the art of trying to pick up the hot girl. This leads to various things like "falling on a grenade" which is when someone's wing man has sex with/picks up an ugly girl so their friend can score with the hot one (with the assumed promise that next time, the positions will be reversed, and the friend will fall on the grenade instead).

So yeah, when someone has terms created by and associated with people who by definition see girls as pieces of meat (at least for a time) it can become fairly offensive. Used at intended getting "friend zoned" is negative, as it represents a failed pickup/seduction, in a situation where someone was taking time to do it as opposed to a quick pickup in a bar or whatever. The problem is people started using the term in the kinds of relationships where it really doesn't apply. See, basically if you care about being "friend zoned", the term doesn't fit, since ultimately the kind of person using that term is supposed to pretty much take it as a failure and move on. It's simply a different kind of failure than say being shot down brutally. In some cases if a girl is really hot or there is a contest of sorts going on (ie multiple Don Juan wannabes competing to see who will score first) then there might be efforts made to get out of the "friend zone" and it might be seen as more of a success than someone who was just shot down... but this goes well beyond the context of this discussion.

In short, I think the discussions on the term on the internet represent a literal "out of context problem".

 

[Abomination]

Now personally, I don't use the word friendzone like I used to, because the word has its meaning radically altered in recent years. It is still weird to see a word basically change itself out of existence.

I use it frequently when describing an individual who devoted a significant amount of time attempting to woo another only to be told they would "rather be friends".

I don't care that some nutters are convinced it somehow now means "feels they deserve sexual reward"... they're probably the same people who think that's all a male ever wants when engaging in attempts to create a romantic relationship with a female.

 

[Smeatza]

And I've been led to believe that moral culpability is the common interpretation of the term friendzone. If you check the urbandictionary[footnote]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=friend%20zone[/footnote] (although, lol urbandictionary), I'm not far off. At the very least, the man is usually angry and resentful at the woman for rejecting him:

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

2. Guy:
"Well why the fuck did I waste two months on you?"

4. where women will piss and moan about not wanting to ruin a frendship, somehow overlooking the fact that guys already have friends, and so do they. Stupid bitches.

And so on.

That's from a comedy web site though.
The wikipedia page is more accurate.

Uuuuh, and yeah, "Being told that would happen" might have been a poor choice of words. But if a man's actions only suggest that all he wants to be is friends, then he can hardly act surprised if the woman becomes comfortable in that situation. He can try and ask her out if he wants, and he should! I fully support friendships turning into romantic relationships, it's fun. But if the woman doesn't want it, he shouldn't get angry. Disappointment is one thing, that's perfectly fine, and understandable. Resentment and blaming the woman isn't.

She isn't entitled to the friendship. Nobody is. Nobody is entitled to a part of your time if you don't want to give it to them (unless you work for them or something). It's just when you, like I said, assign negative traits to the woman for only wanting a friendship rather than to fuck, that you hit a problem.

And if the colloquial meaning of friendzone changes to mean something better, then that's splendid.
Because like I said; I too get annoyed when feminists jump on every usage of the word friendzone, as if the word must mean something nasty. I only say that it tends to mean something nasty, so you should be careful when using it.

Friendzone has the same meaning it always has. The negative connotations associated with it are nothing but in the eye of the beholder.
The only thing you can reliably say is likely to come packaged with use of the term "friendzone" is the assumption that you can change how someone looks at you, type "friendzone forum" into google and look at all the forum posts, little to no malicious outbursts but constant ignorance over social dynamics.

 

[Caiphus]

Friendzone has the same meaning it always has. The negative connotations associated with it are nothing but in the eye of the beholder.
The only thing you can reliably say is likely to come packaged with use of the term "friendzone" is the assumption that you can change how someone looks at you, type "friendzone forum" into google and look at all the forum posts, little to no malicious outbursts but constant ignorance over social dynamics.

I'd like to believe that, but hey, half this thread was yelling at the OP for trying to use the word in the way you describe it. I'd take that as an indication that the meaning might, colloquially at least, be somewhere closer to the urbandictionary definition than you are making out.

Although maybe that's an ad populum fallacy, I don't know.

In any case, I have no emotional investment in the bloody word either way. Although it has inflated my post count, so there is that. I just came into the thread to warn the OP that people generally take offence, so he would be better off phrasing his unrequited love differently.

Edit: Can there be an ad populum fallacy when determining the meaning of slang? Or is that the point of slang?

Further edit: I really cannot be arsed discussing the meaning of this word anymore. I think I'm going crazy.

 

[Mareon]

My problem isn't "friendzone", it is the word "friendzoned" as in "she friendzoned me". This implicate that the woman picked you up, looked you over and deliberately decided that you would be a friend, not a boyfriend. You can't choose who you are attracted to, people!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

The biggest issue I have with the word is that it is used usually in the wrong way. All these examples people are giving tend to ignore the bit where the guy has to actually act on his feelings!

A lot of the 'nice guys' who use the term to describe the situation, when you dig into it, you find that the situation is more: Boy likes girl, boy does nice things for girl (well... things that he sees as nice, but is actually just being a friend... like going shopping with, being the shoulder to cry on, looking after them when they are drunk etc) then boy expects girl to suddenly be his girlfriend... There is usually no mention that they have actually asked the girl out, explained that he likes her or any of that shabazz!

Friendzone is a fine slang term to use if the guy has literally been told that he is just a friend and nothing more. And anyone saying 'why do we need to have another term for unrequited love?' Welcome to the English language... we have a lot of terms for many different things.

 

[IpponDropkick]

I have issue with the word because it brings with it, to my mind, a sense that it isn't the default. People say that they've been "put in the friendzone". You weren't. You were always there. You were a friend, and the fact that you don't get to progress from that state is not strange or different. You haven't progressed. You are where you were. The way the word is used turns this process into something that's done to you instead of being the status quo.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I've never been comfortable with the term and have usually left it for other people to use, but in retrospect it is pretty ridiculous.

If you meet someone and feel interested in something more, you really need to make that clear (the sooner the better). If you maintain a friendship with someone and feel bad that it's all the other person will ever want to do with you -- and you haven't been honest with them -- it's really your fault. If you did and feel "stranded" in the other zone, you were going to be there anyway because the other person probably would have already shown interest.

Furthermore, don't put people in a relationship-zone when they're happy being your friend. You wouldn't want to be put in the same position, either.

 

[Dick Castle]

We already have a term for unrequited love. Unrequited love. Why do we need another one that means the exact same thing?

Because in the real world, throwing around the word "love" willy nilly creeps people out way more than using the term "friend zone" does in the bubble of semantic kvetching known as the internets.

 

[Abomination]

We already have a term for unrequited love. Unrequited love. Why do we need another one that means the exact same thing?

Because in the real world, throwing around the word "love" willy nilly creeps people out way more than using the term "friend zone" does in the bubble of semantic kvetching known as the internets.

It's actually a really good point. If I was to say I tried to date a girl and I was put in the "friendzone" then it sounds a lot better than saying that my "unrequited love" was not returned.

I don't love the girl. I want to start a relationship which could eventually LEAD to love. If I loved the girl before even engaging in that then I deserve to be shot down because that stuff labels you as a freaking spazz. Sure, it's "romantic" but in the real world if you fall in love with someone before even establishing a relationship you're not very stable.

 

[Dick Castle]

I don't love the girl. I want to start a relationship which could eventually LEAD to love. If I loved the girl before even engaging in that then I deserve to be shot down because that stuff labels you as a freaking spazz. Sure, it's "romantic" but in the real world if you fall in love with someone before even establishing a relationship you're not very stable.

I think we need to step back and look at individual scenarios. I know in my personal "friend zone" situation, if that's acceptable (this was back when "Friends" had just introduced it to the lexicon), the woman in question had been my friend for some period of time already. It wasn't like I met her and already wanted to date her within minutes. She was platonic like my many other female friends. It was a slow process over a few months and a lot of long talks about deep subjects that led to it. And I can honestly say that when it did hit me....yes, I was in love. Now did I toss the word "love" out there freely? Well, no, and I suppose that was more male pride than anything.

I find it strange that in this generation, the term has morphed into just being about a simple one night hook-up. If we are to believe the cultural pulse, more and more "friends" are hooking up for no strings casual sex.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's actually a really good point. If I was to say I tried to date a girl and I was put in the "friendzone" then it sounds a lot better than saying that my "unrequited love" was not returned.

I don't love the girl. I want to start a relationship which could eventually LEAD to love. If I loved the girl before even engaging in that then I deserve to be shot down because that stuff labels you as a freaking spazz. Sure, it's "romantic" but in the real world if you fall in love with someone before even establishing a relationship you're not very stable.

Meh. "Unrequited" can be coupled with other words. It's just an adjective. "Unrequited Love" happens to be an aphorism because it's one of those life experiences almost everyone goes through at one time or another, and it tends to leave an impression. You could just as easily have unrequited lust, unrequited affection, heck even unrequited friendship.

Like most slang, "friendzone" is not a necessary word for the purposes of communication, it's just a verbal shortcut. As discussed earlier in the thread, slang can be problematic precisely because there is no formal definition, and what definition there is tends to be highly mutable. That doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't use slang as short hand amongst their friends or people who have come to understand accept the context and meaning of the words being used, but they can't cry too hard when slang terminology is misappropriated and/or misunderstood.

I find it strange that in this generation, the term has morphed into just being about a simple one night hook-up. If we are to believe the cultural pulse, more and more "friends" are hooking up for no strings casual sex.

It morphed into a whinge more than anything else. I don't think it ever specifically referred to casual sex.