Forget the Friend Zone, it's OK to be attracted to a friend

[Toy Master Typhus]

I'm so confused. I feel like this is more 'OMG YOU HAVE FEELINGS HOW CAN YOU BE SUCH A TERRIBLE PERSON' responses that seems to be so keen on the interwebs.

However, when I learned about the term 'Friendzone', it came when women I was interested in said they could only see me as a friend. It wasn't some funny term to dismiss the feelings of the various women... it was the term that was used when women politely rejected you by saying you're only a friend. I don't even see how that's bad?

I mean, there were only a few times a woman I was interested in told me 'I don't find you attractive'. And I never turned around and said 'Yeah, she friendzoned me'. I said she didn't find me attractive. If the woman in question gave me a reason or told me that she wasn't attracted to me, I didn't use the term 'friendzone'. No one I knew did. If she did use the term friend, we said the term.

It's not dismissive to anyone's feelings if they used the term friend. It would be if he or she went on to say other things and a person used it as a way to save their ego. In all honestly, this all feels like the term 'friendzone' is tied up with the overwhelming distaste and vitriol with Nice Guys (tm).

Did you remain friends after she said you were just one?

My experience in relationship scenarios that end with "Let's just be friends", we aren't friends. The next week usually goes the route of she won't say 'hi' when ever we pass each other. She doesn't look in my general direction. She finds a new group of friends to sit with. At which point inner rage is at simmer because I felt like I have been lied to twice, Once on the grounds that she said she sees you as a friend and second on the ground that she said she has interest in staying friends. So I get used to the idea that she wants to have nothing to do with me. She has a right to leave a friendship the only thing I can do is get but hurt over that. So a week or 2 turns in to a month or 2 and during this time I get asked by someone:

"why doesn't XXXX hang around with us anymore"
"I asked her out"
"And..."
"She wants to be friends"
"By avoiding all of us.."
"seems that way"

At this point when people acknowledge the event rumors begin to spread, you know how high school is. So once the rumors spread back to the girl I get a nice little visit from her.

"Why are you spreading rumors about me, Aren't we friends!"
"We were..."
"Oh so I'm not your friend anymore"
"We don't hang out, you don't even come by to say 'Hi" to anyone"
"Well fine I guess we aren't friends anymore"

And that's how that conversation ended with it being my fault we aren't friends anymore. When entering adult hood I seem to notice that Adults during dating never use the line "Let's just be friends". Adults are usually up front. It is always a line used by angsty teenagers to avoid responsibility of shooting someone down.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

One, being a grammar nazi I'm getting exasperated at the word "friend" being used when "acquaintance" is meant; and two, I do see it as bad if someone assumes about me that I don't even have the spine to handle some honesty.

It's not dismissive, but again, the first thing you do if you want to be my friend, is be straight with me instead of sugarcoating stuff and being evasive.

I semi think we're on the same side of things, I think. I'm saying I don't mind the term 'friendzone' used, but when it was used to me, I honestly did 'become friends' first before I had feelings. That's how I'm attracted to someone. I get to know them and then interest starts. So that's why I don't mind if a girl uses it.

But yeah, if she's not attracted to me, I rather her say it than being evasive. But it is putting her on the spot, and she probably doesn't want to hurt me any more after telling me she doesn't think of me that way. I get the kindness, so I can usually overlook most things.

Did you remain friends after she said you were just one?

My experience in relationship scenarios that end with "Let's just be friends", we aren't friends. The next week usually goes the route of she won't say 'hi' when ever we pass each other. She doesn't look in my general direction. She finds a new group of friends to sit with. At which point inner rage is at simmer because I felt like I have been lied to twice, Once on the grounds that she said she sees you as a friend and second on the ground that she said she has interest in staying friends. So I get used to the idea that she wants to have nothing to do with me. She has a right to leave a friendship the only thing I can do is get but hurt over that. So a week or 2 turns in to a month or 2 and during this time I get asked by someone:

"why doesn't XXXX hang around with us anymore"
"I asked her out"
"And..."
"She wants to be friends"
"By avoiding all of us.."
"seems that way"

At this point when people acknowledge the event rumors begin to spread, you know how high school is. So once the rumors spread back to the girl I get a nice little visit from her.

"Why are you spreading rumors about me, Aren't we friends!"
"We were..."
"Oh so I'm not your friend anymore"
"We don't hang out, you don't even come by to say 'Hi" to anyone"
"Well fine I guess we aren't friends anymore"

And that's how that conversation ended with it being my fault we aren't friends anymore. When entering adult hood I seem to notice that Adults during dating never use the line "Let's just be friends". Adults are usually up front. It is always a line used by angsty teenagers to avoid responsibility of shooting someone down.

I'm starting to feel like I didn't make myself clear. I was stating that I am for the term 'friendzone' because I learned it as what a woman says when she can't feel differently for you other than a friend. I went on to say that if someone said she wasn't attracted to me, I accepted that but didn't lump it as the friendzone because she definitively told me how she felt.

Anyway, to directly answer your question, Some did remain friends with me and even fewer I'm friends with to this day. Some were trying to brush me off nicely. And it is awkward on both paths, and this was a high school thing anyway. Girls and boys back then didn't even really understand how they are feeling, much less not know how to deal with it being awkward. I forgive the foolishness of youth because I was foolish in my youth, so I understand.

 

[Darken12]

Lemme ask you. How many times have you ever been told, staight up, by a person you have spent time with and grown close to, that you're too ugly etc for them to date?

Oh what's that? Zero times? Because they're looking out for your feelings (however illadvised and misguidedly) perhaps? No, saying one has been friend-zoned doesn't make one a rejection-avoiding crybaby. It provides a nice, encompassing concept for people to grasp to help them deal with the situation they've been put in. If you can recognise something, and know it, you can defeat it. People are afraid of the unknown, and unfortunately, when you are rejected by someone who sees you as a friend, they often don't want to tell you to your face /why/ you're being rejected. Because they care just enough to not hurt you. So all you get is a big old question mark that doesn't provide closure, doesn't provide reason, and just results in even more hurt and confusion.

And by the way, you can't put yourself in the friend zone. That's just ridiculous.

So you mean to say that when a non-friend rejects you (be they acquaintances, strangers or anything else), they never, ever look out for your feelings? Because it seems to me that "people who let you down gently" can be either friends or non-friends, and making up a term for the former has absolutely no purpose.

The reason why people say "you put yourself in the friendzone" is because you are the one that decides to take a rejection just like any other and give it a special name.

I think it's more common with men simply because women are more culturally expected to repress their sexuality.

Just like when you see a youtube video with a man and a woman in it, and all comments are about how hot the woman is, but there are none about the man.

It's the same deal with friends. Men usually feel more comfortable openly exclaiming how attractive they find any of their female friends, and how they would be intersted in a relationhip with them if possible. Meanwhile, women are more guilt-tripped into acting all chaste and asexual, so they are more likely to deny that they might possibly look at anyone else that way.

Then again, some members of both genders subvert these norms. But whether or not the word "friendzone" is actually used to describe this by either of them, is mostly just coinciential.

I would agree with this rationale, mainly because of slut-shaming. If a woman actively pursues the subjects of her attraction in the same way men do, she is often labelled a "slut" and suffers social consequences. The "socially acceptable" form of pursuit for a woman is to look pretty and wait for a man to take notice of her, which exposes her to far fewer "let's just be friends" speeches or any other forms of direct rejection.

 

[Vault101]

this whole idea of the friend zone, created by "Nice Guys" is really stupid. If you were actually a nice guy, you wouldn't think this crap. You give actual, genuinely nice guys a bad name.
her.

well thats the distinction....they arent actual "nice guys" they are just jerks at worst or misguided at best

 

[EvilRoy]

I've always thought of the term "friend-zone" to just be a sort of innuendo when used by normal well-adjusted people, which I assume people are by default for reasons. I watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU the other day, and it got me thinking that.

Like, when someone says "I got friendzoned", I know that he means "she wasn't into me", and he knows that he means "she wasn't into me", but he can't be sure that I know that he knows and I can't be sure that he knows that I know. I can infer that he knows what he means, and he can infer that I know what he means, but since it isn't explicit he can shelter his ego for better or worse, and I understand the situation implicitly and can therefore avoid awkwardness in the future based on my inferred understanding.

I've heard this kind of thing referred to as a serious problem or immaturity that a person has, but (assuming again the person is well adjusted) I don't really see it that way. Or at least I see it as no more dangerous than someone choosing to accept "I was going to wash my hair tonight" as possibly being honest as opposed to being an outright rejection.

 

[xorinite]

The friendzone is always portrayed as a bad thing, that's why the word was invented, as a way to name a specific thing that was being perceived as a problem.

As far as I can tell the term 'friend zone' entered mainstream usage after it was used in an 1994 episode of the sitcom 'Friends' to describe the relationship between the series primary romance sub-plot, if this is the primary source of the terms usage then its invention was primarily to sell advertisement slots, subscription services and dvds. As for its official invention, I haven't tracked it down to its first ever recorded usage and I doubt that would have as much to do with its modern usage as Joey did.

Also, what the fuck is the problem with being friends with someone you're attracted to?

Unrequited love is a painful emotion, pain is something most people try to avoid.

Why is the friendship with a woman so worthless?

Why must this person be a woman? Not everyone is going to experience love, unrequited or otherwise towards a woman.

While I don't consider friendship worthless, it seems to me to be something most people value less than the concept of love. While I personally have found love and friendship to be somewhat mutable in their parameters, with some overlap, I've found love typically implies greater closeness, greater sharing, and greater emotional investment.

I believe this term has descriptive utility. It appears to me to apply to a situation where one person is in love with another, and this other person views the first as an non-viable romance sometimes specifically because they are friends. Which is how it was used in 'Friends'.

I am of the belief that the majority of people use it this way, I'm not convinced that groups I may find on google are particularly reflective of broader society, especially if such groups are attempting to exploit peoples insecurity to sell them things. (How rampant is that; wrinkle cream, hair products, deodorant, even bread adverts do it)

I can imagine two situations more likely, than 'Friends', when this would occur; the first is when two people are mutually attracted to each other, then one persons feelings change. The second situation, is when two people misread each other; one person believing the second is interested in a platonic relationship, the second believing the first is interested in a romantic one. The second situation is a greater problem the more socially inexperienced, inept, and doubtlessly insecure a person is.

We also seem to have very different opinions on how we should deal with people who are insecure, be it about their looks, their ability in social situations, or their success in finding someone to share their life with.

The tense verb form 'friend zoned' is a bit more troubling since it, to me, carries an implication of intent even malice.
I've not encountered it in this form first hand, so I did a little looking around on the internet. Thankfully this doesn't appear to be about the exploitation of someone's romantic feelings for personal gain. It looks like this simply refers to a cliché 'easy let down' rejection, in that regard I've 'friend zoned' people too, its pretty much unavoidable if a friend develops feelings for you that you do not share.

As for people complaining and laying recriminations, well to risk my own usage of cliché I think that's just part of how people deal with loss, and the loss of a hope can be as powerful an emotion as the loss of anything tangible. How people choose to express their emotions well, that is something else. Sometimes just being aware that these emotions, regardless of rationality are to be expected can help people get over them.

Edit: some boring clarification changes.

 

[Darken12]

As far as I can tell the term 'friend zone' entered mainstream usage after it was used in an 1994 episode of the sitcom 'friends' to describe the relationship between the series primary romance sub-plot, if this is the primary source of the terms usage then its invention was primarily to sell advertisement slots, subscription services and dvd's. As for its official invention, I haven't tracked it down to its first ever recorded usage and I doubt that would have as much to do with its modern usage as Joey did.

I saw that episode. Within the context of it, it was the described as a problem. See for yourself:


The phrases Ross is using are still being said today. "I'm laying the groundwork", "I'm waiting for the right moment", "every day I'm getting a little bit closer" and so on and so forth. That scene was almost prophetic, in a way.

Unrequited love is a painful emotion, pain is something most people try to avoid.

It's also an emotion that everyone experiences, often many times throughout their lives. Accepting it and moving on is a lot healthier than fabricating terms to explain a perceived problem that doesn't really exist. When you have an unrequited crush on someone, and they only want to be friends, you can either accept those terms and get over your crush (usually by opening yourself to the possibility of having a relationship with someone else and going for it) or you can refuse the friendship and get over your crush by avoiding that person. The choice is yours. People don't friendzone you, O hapless victim of circumstance. You choose how you handle your own feelings within the framework you have (in this case, that the other person doesn't correspond your feelings and only wants to be friends).

Why must this person be a woman? Not everyone is going to experience love, unrequited or otherwise towards a woman.

Because the people using the word the most are straight males. The proportion of women and non-straight males using the word is much, much lower.

Furthermore, while friendship isn't worthless, it's clearly something people value less than the concept of love. While I personally have found love and friendship somewhat mutable, I've found the former typically implies greater closeness, greater sharing, and greater emotional investment.

It's also not something you're entitled to, and whining because you didn't get your way and instead got something only slightly less awesome is incredibly immature.

I believe this term does has descriptive power. It appears to me to be easily applicable to a situation where one person is in love with another, and this other person views the first as a friend and not a romantic interest specifically because they are friends. Which is how it was used in 'friends'.

I am of the belief that the majority of people use it this way, I'm not convinced that groups I may find on google are particularly reflective of broader society, especially if such groups are attempting to specifically exploit peoples insecurity, to sell them things. (How rampant is that in our society? Wrinkle cream, hair products, deodorant, even bread adverts)

I can imagine two situations more likely, than friends, when this would occur; the first is when two people are mutually attracted to each other, then one persons feelings change. The second situation, is when two people misread each other; one person believing the second is interested in a platonic relationship, the second believing the first is interested in a romantic one. The second situation is a greater problem the more socially inexperienced, inept, and doubtlessly insecure a person is.

My objections with the word is that it is always used to describe a problem. It is not a problem that someone wants to be only friends with you. This isn't something to regard negatively, and doing so only drives a further wedge between the sexes and defines sexual or romantic attraction as an adversarial interaction.

We also seem to have very different opinions on how we should deal with people who are insecure, be it about their looks, their ability in social situations, or their success in finding someone to share their life with.

The tense verb form 'friend zoned' is a bit more troubling since it does carry an implication of intent and malice, I've not encountered it in this form first hand, so I did a little looking around on the internet. Thankfully this doesn't appear to be about the exploitation of someone's romantic feelings for personal gain. It looks like this simply refers to a cliché 'easy let down' rejection, in that regard I've 'friend zoned' people too, its pretty much unavoidable if a friend develops feelings for you that you do not share.

As for people complaining and laying recriminations, well to risk my own usage of cliché I think that's just part of how people deal with loss, and the loss of a hope can be as powerful an emotion as the loss of anything tangible. How people choose to express their emotions well, that is something else. Sometimes just being aware that these emotions, regardless of rationality are to be expected can help people get over them.

I do not consider it acceptable to embrace a very harmful conception simply because "that's how people deal with loss." People also deal with loss by acting out and being violent. It's not a justification for that, and it shouldn't be a justification for this either.

 

[xorinite]

I saw that episode. Within the context of it, it was the described as a problem. See for yourself:

Sure, it described a problem that Ross was having expressing his emotions. In his case it was entirely a problem of communication since his feelings weren't unrequited.

The phrases Ross is using are still being said today. "I'm laying the groundwork", "I'm waiting for the right moment", "every day I'm getting a little bit closer" and so on and so forth. That scene was almost prophetic, in a way.

I'd suggest descriptive, rather than predictive; the same dynamics between individuals existed at the time of writing, including situations involving social awkwardness the term the writers invented to pigeon hole them have simply entered mainstream usage.

Accepting it and moving on is a lot healthier than fabricating terms

As you have demonstrated they did not fabricate the term. Professional writers did in 1994. People have simply been using it.

a perceived problem that doesn't really exist. When you have an unrequited crush on someone, and they only want to be friends, you can either accept those terms... (snip) or you can refuse the friendship... (snip) The choice is yours.

You say there is no problem, yet you offer two solutions. We must be using the word problem to mean different things.

I am unconvinced that emotion or attraction are necessarily choices. Furthermore, refusing the friendship was exactly what you suggested was unreasonable. Under certain circumstances refusing a friendship would be the responsible thing to do.

Because the people using the word the most are straight males. The proportion of women and non-straight males using the word is much, much lower.

Firstly, I wouldn't know about that, I have not seen any source of data drawn from the general public regarding who uses this term or does not. The majority of times I have encountered the term, is on forums like this, usually by people bringing it up to argue against it.
Secondly, who uses a term is less important that acceptance of the term, many people may use a term, but if the term is recognised to be descriptive of something manifest then the term would be valid regardless of who uses it.
Thirdly, even if usage was determined and ruled as the only applicable way to determine a terms validity, why should you exclude minorities from a discussion which pertains to them?

It's also not something you're entitled to, and whining because you didn't get your way and instead got something only slightly less awesome is incredibly immature.

There are lots of things people are not entitled to, expressing themselves through language however I do not believe is one of them. Additionally we disagree on the value of expression of disappointment and sorrow.

My objections with the word is that it is always used to describe a problem. It is not a problem that someone wants to be only friends with you. This isn't something to regard negatively, and doing so only drives a further wedge between the sexes and defines sexual or romantic attraction as an adversarial interaction.

I disagree with the uniformity of saying its not a problem, I believe it may or may not be a problem. Pain is something I generally regard negatively, if someone experiences pain from their situation, then generally that situation is something I would consider negative. If I do not experience pain in the same situation, that shouldn't grant me licence to dismiss another persons.

While I agree there is a problem regarding sexual or romantic attraction being seen as adversarial (the kind that is satirised in Red Dwarf with hapless heel Arnold Rimmers favourite book being "How To Pick Up Girls By Hypnosis".) I am unconvinced that regarding unrequited love as negative does anything to divide sexes, or reinforces adversarial interactions.

I do not consider it acceptable to embrace a very harmful conception simply because "that's how people deal with loss." People also deal with loss by acting out and being violent. It's not a justification for that, and it shouldn't be a justification for this either.

We may be suffering a miscommunication; I have not suggested the concept of a 'friend zone' or being 'friend zoned' as an emotional response to loss, but rather a description of something.
I am unconvinced that the concept behind either the noun or the verb, nor their expression, is harmful I also do not think it has much equivocacy with violence or destructive behaviour either.

My suggestion was that feelings of blame are to be expected even when unjustified, as a natural response to loss, if those feelings are a transitory part of moving on, then its perfectly healthy to have them.
Expressing them may be more of a problem, people used to just complain to their friends in person, these days people are more likely to air these things in public, due to the ease at which it can be done with social media.
However as I attempted to suggest before, there is a difference between emotion, speech and action.

 

[Lilani]

The Friend Zone doesn't exist, and the only reason it has achieved such a wide recognition and acceptance is because it allows insecure guys to hide behind that to avoid facing rejection.

Oy vey.

The term "Friend Zone" refers to the idea that someone isn't attracted to you because they can only see you as a friend. This term is used and experienced by guys and girls alike. It's a thing.

I honestly don't know why there's such vitriol towards the idea of the "friend-zone".

The "friend zone" has become such a huge deal here because there are times when the person invoking it is also displaying signs of victimization, self-pity, and borderline misogyny. The term has recently been revived here on the Internet, and is mostly used by guys who can't get a girl's attention. That is where the assumption it "only" happens to guys comes from.

Then there's the actual reason it's being mentioned. A lot of times, when somebody invokes the "friend zone," this is actually what's going on:

What's going on with them is there's a friend that they like, and they won't do anything about it. It's not that they can't do anything about it--there's a way out no matter where they are in the situation. If they haven't asked her out, then they can ask her out. If he has asked her out and the answer is no, he can get over it. If he can't get over it, he can explain this to her and not spend time with her for a while until he does get over it. But the people who often come on the Internet and complain about being in the friend zone won't do any of these things. If they won't up and ask her directly they whine about how she can't see how much he likes her, and if she's said no they whine about how being friends has somehow "blinded" her to the romantic possibility of them. The fact that she just might not like them that way is never a viable answer.

So no, there isn't anything wrong with the friend zone on its own, and yes it can happen to guys or gals. But the ones who whine about being in it are usually guys who either can't cope with rejection or don't have the guts to just tell the girl how he feels.

The misogyny comes into play when that inner turmoil turns to selfish anger. There was a thread in the advice forum not long ago that got locked. It was a guy complaining about being in the friend zone. He had confessed to the girl, but she rejected him and was going out with another guy. But he wouldn't stand for it, deciding the guy she was going out with was a jerk and that she was wrong for going out with him. He wanted to sabotage their relationship and try to manipulate her back to him. He was so desperate to fulfill his selfish need for her that he completely disregarded what she wanted for herself and her happiness. That is where the friend zone goes from sad to disgusting, and that is why some people get sent into a total rage when people complain about being in the friend zone. The fact that some people are so convinced of its existence that they use it as an excuse to not get over someone and become emotionally abusive.

I have no problem with the idea of someone who has been hurt because they confessed their feelings to a friend and they said no, and I think most people would agree. That is a reasonable response, and expected in any situation when one is rejected. But it becomes a problem when the person refuses to cope with this rejection, and places the blame on the person they confessed to rather than just fate or bad luck.

 

[Darken12]

Sure, it described a problem that Ross was having expressing his emotions. In his case it was entirely a problem of communication since his feelings weren't unrequited.

What? No. The proposed solution was for Ross to make a move. That wasn't the problem. The problem that Joey described was Rachel considering Ross a friend and nothing more. His encouragement stemmed from the concern that if Ross didn't do something soon, he'd be "stuck" in the friend zone forever. That's what the perceived problem was, that somehow being just friends with a woman was a bad thing that needed to be avoided.

I'd suggest descriptive, rather than predictive; the same dynamics between individuals existed at the time of writing, including situations involving social awkwardness the term the writers invented to pigeon hole them have simply entered mainstream usage.

That directly contradicts what you say here:

As you have demonstrated they did not fabricate the term. Professional writers did in 1994. People have simply been using it.

If the situation already existed, then the term was a fabrication for something that didn't need to be identified as a problem.

You say there is no problem, yet you offer two solutions. We must be using the word problem to mean different things.

I don't offer solutions, because I don't see the situation as a problem. What I offered were choices. Choices and solutions are not the same thing. When you take a right instead of a left at a crossroad, you're making a choice. When you pick lemonade instead of orange juice, you're making a choice. Neither of those choices are solutions to a problem.

I am unconvinced that emotion or attraction are necessarily choices. Furthermore, refusing the friendship was exactly what you suggested was unreasonable. Under certain circumstances refusing a friendship would be the responsible thing to do.

Nobody said emotion was a choice. In fact, I said the exact opposite, that how you deal with your emotions is a choice. Also, I never said that refusing a friendship was unreasonable, I said that the idea that a friendship with a person you might be attracted to is somehow a bad thing IS unreasonable. You are under no obligation to make friends with people you don't feel like being friends with. If you have no interest in being friends with the girl, don't be. What annoys me is the idea that being friends with a person you're attracted to is always a bad thing and that your goal should always be to get them to date you even when they've expressly stated they have no feelings for you (the advice given most of the time is that they don't wish to date you because you're being "too nice" or "too beta" or "not sexually aggressive enough" and so on).

Firstly, I wouldn't know about that, I have not seen any source of data drawn from the general public regarding who uses this term or does not. The majority of times I have encountered the term, is on forums like this, usually by people bringing it up to argue against it.
Secondly, who uses a term is less important that acceptance of the term, many people may use a term, but if the term is recognised to be descriptive of something manifest then the term would be valid regardless of who uses it.
Thirdly, even if usage was determined and ruled as the only applicable way to determine a terms validity, why should you exclude minorities from a discussion which pertains to them?

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_zone

"While some believe that this is a group that is male-exclusive, it has been known to happen to women as well,"

As for the rest, I am not excluding anyone from the conversation (as demonstrated by me not saying anything to the women who've posted in this thread), I am saying that it's highly disingenuous (and I'd almost say it's deliberately obfuscating the issue) to assume that it's a thing that happens to both genders equally and that is a product of the human condition in general instead of a consequence of the different societal discourses given to men and women.

Also, I do not buy into the "descriptive" justification. We already have a descriptive word for what happens in that situation and it's called "rejection". For more specificity, there's also the phrases "being let down gently" or "soft rejection" or "sparing someone's feelings". We don't need a word that puts the responsibility of the situation onto the rejecting party and actively portrays the rejected party as a victim.

There are lots of things people are not entitled to, expressing themselves through language however I do not believe is one of them. Additionally we disagree on the value of expression of disappointment and sorrow.

We do disagree on the latter, yes. I consider it highly unproductive to validate someone's negative feelings when it involves a removal of responsibility for their own actions and the perpetuation of harmful social practices and ideals.

I disagree with the uniformity of saying its not a problem, I believe it may or may not be a problem. Pain is something I generally regard negatively, if someone experiences pain from their situation, then generally that situation is something I would consider negative. If I do not experience pain in the same situation, that shouldn't grant me licence to dismiss another persons.

While I agree there is a problem regarding sexual or romantic attraction being seen as adversarial (the kind that is satirised in Red Dwarf with hapless heel Arnold Rimmers favourite book being "How To Pick Up Girls By Hypnosis".) I am unconvinced that regarding unrequited love as negative does anything to divide sexes, or reinforces adversarial interactions.

I do not consider a situation to be a problem merely because someone experiences pain. Pain is a fact of life. It will happen to you, and it will happen very often. Refusing to see the upsides of a situation and labelling it negative or a problem simply because it has a component of pain is a highly harmful behaviour, particularly towards the other people involved in those situations, as they are made responsible for a negative situation when it wasn't their fault at all.

You completely missed my point on the latter. You keep painting the friendzone as this innocent, harmless thing that is used by the poor, pitiable victim of unrequited love. I do not buy that for one second, and I don't think I ever will. What I meant with the division between the sexes and the reinforcement of the adversarial interactions is not only the unrequited love, but the blanket dismissal of friendship with a woman as a negative thing. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that "men and women can't be friends", which is obviously another sexist fabrication. The friendzone is an extension of that idea, predicated on the philosophy that if a man is attracted to a woman and she only wishes to be friends with him, then this situation is regarded universally as a bad thing to be avoided at all costs, dismissing the idea that a friendship with a member of the opposite sex might be just as satisfying (or even more so) than a relationship. And even if it isn't just as satisfying, the idea that you can shift your attraction to someone else while preserving and treasuring the friendship with the person you were originally attracted to is dismissed out of hand.

That is what creates a gender divide and what turns attraction into an adversarial interaction, the idea that friendship with someone you are attracted to is something to always dismiss.

We may be suffering a miscommunication; I have not suggested the concept of a 'friend zone' or being 'friend zoned' as an emotional response to loss, but rather a description of something.
I am unconvinced that the concept behind either the noun or the verb, nor their expression, is harmful I also do not think it has much equivocacy with violence or destructive behaviour either.

My suggestion was that feelings of blame are to be expected even when unjustified, as a natural response to loss, if those feelings are a transitory part of moving on, then its perfectly healthy to have them.
Expressing them may be more of a problem, people used to just complain to their friends in person, these days people are more likely to air these things in public, due to the ease at which it can be done with social media.
However as I attempted to suggest before, there is a difference between emotion, speech and action.

And I am similarly unconvinced that the use of the word is harmless, innocent or merely descriptive. I am completely convinced that it is a word meant to justify and validate playing the victim in a scenario that is entirely of a person's own doing, and is often used to justify creepy and/or misogynistic behaviour under the idea of emotionally manipulating a woman by being "a supportive friend" in the hopes she will reconsider her previous stance. I've also explained above why I find the word socially harmful, and why I would much, much rather the idea of being friends with a member of the opposite sex to be regarded as a positive thing, rather than a negative situation.

I agree that there is a difference between emotion, speech and action, but the friendzone isn't an emotion, it's speech. Like I said already twice before, I have no problems with feelings of disappointment, I have a problem with the way they're being handled by the use of the word and the actions taken as a consequence.

 

[Images]

The friend zone exists. Humans are animals. Animals decide on suitable mates. If you are not deemed a suitable mate you may still be deemed a friend. This is the friendzone. Friendship is not a bad thing. The friendzone implies a level of trust, that you are not seen as a threat and can be trusted with personal matters and are not trying to get it on. Circumstances may change that you are viewed in a different light and possibly as a suitable mate. That is purely up to cirumstances, chance, bla bla bla.

However...

It is creepy as shit to sit there staring at a friend thinking how much you want to bone them. This invalidates said trust.

It is a person in extreme denial who thinks you can still have the same friendship after you try to make a move. The game has changed if that happens.

Your choice is binary. Either you deal with your feelings or you take a plunge and display them.

Anything else is stupidity.

It would also be ridiculous to try and say that the concept of the friendzone is either owned by one sex or is in any way a new thing. That is just whiney-talk. People of both sexes can be friendzoned and this has been going on forever.

 

[xorinite]

That's what the perceived problem was, that somehow being just friends with a woman was a bad thing that needed to be avoided.

The characters did not suggest that being friends with a woman was undesirable, nor did they act in this way. It is only suggested that it would be a problem in this specific case, in which Ross would be thought of as a friend somehow precluding him from ever being thought of romantically (Although apparently this wasn't the case given the romance which did develop)

That directly contradicts what you say here:
(snip, its in the previous post.)
If the situation already existed, then the term was a fabrication for something that didn't need to be identified as a problem.

There is no contradiction there. A term is different than a situation. Before people created the term thermonuclear fusion the sun was doing it.
You stated that insecure males fabricate this term as some kind of emotional defence, despite demonstrating its fabrication was at the hands of professional writers. This to me looks like a simple matter of usage.

I don't offer solutions, because I don't see the situation as a problem.

We have a different understanding of the words solution and problem.

I would consider an undesirable situation a problem. Things a person could do to remove themselves from an undesirable situation, I would call solutions.

What I offered were choices. Choices and solutions are not the same thing... (snip) When you pick lemonade instead of orange juice, you're making a choice. Neither of those choices are solutions to a problem.

At the risk of sounding mechanical aren't choices are inherently solutions to the problem of decision? Also, when you choose between lemonade and orange juice it may also be an additional solution, if your undesirable situation is thirst.

Nobody said emotion was a choice. In fact, I said the exact opposite, that how you deal with your emotions is a choice.

You suggested that a person who finds themselves in love with someone who does not requite they can choose to 'get over it' which implies they can to some extent control their emotional state, while I tend to believe people do have some control over their emotions, I do not believe its uniform or universal.
Dealing with difficult emotions is a skill not everyone possesses, certainly not to the same degree and some do not even possess the same learning capacity to gain this skill.

Also, I never said that refusing a friendship was unreasonable,

You're correct, you asked why it would be undesirable to be friends with someone you are attracted to. I believe there are specific circumstances when this is the case, which I believe you agree with.

What annoys me is the idea that being friends with a person you're attracted to is always a bad thing and that your goal should always be to get them to date.

Ah I see, well that is a pretty silly idea.

"While some believe that this is a group that is male-exclusive, it has been known to happen to women as well,"

That quote doesn't do anything to demonstrate the majority of people who use or accept this term are hetrosexual and male, nor does the link provide me with any data to determine public usage or acceptance of the term in general, let alone by sex, and sexuality.

As for the rest, I am not excluding anyone from the conversation (as demonstrated by me not saying anything to the women who've posted in this thread)

I got the impression from you specifically only addressing people attracted to women that you believed people who don't agree with your position that the term doesn't describe something useful are only attracted to women. I see no reason to only discuss this with hetrosexual men, why not discuss it with everyone.

We already have a descriptive word for what happens in that situation and it's called "rejection"... (snip) We don't need a word that puts the responsibility of the situation onto the rejecting party and actively portrays the rejected party as a victim.

Yes, we do already have words and terms to identify these situations. We also have words multiple words and terms to represent other ideas, I see no convincing reason to treat this differently. To my mind you might as well be arguing that we don't need to say large when we can say big, or mail, when we can say post, or films when we can say motion pictures.

As for the latter part, that only really happens with the verb form, which wasn't the subject of the original topic. I also don't see how saying X rejected Y, has any less utility when it comes to assigning blame.
People have said to me in discussions, it is my fault if I reject something they have said. The situation is different, but it demonstrates the words can still be used to assign blame.

We do disagree on the latter, yes. I consider it highly unproductive to validate someone's negative feelings when it involves a removal of responsibility for their own actions and the perpetuation of harmful social practices and ideals.

I don't believe emotions necessarily require validation. I am also, as I mentioned previously, unconvinced the usage of the term as its generally applied does that, the noun form especially.
I believe talking about the way we feel is something to be encouraged since it improves our own emotional awareness. Simply not talking about it to me seems unhealthy.

I do not consider a situation to be a problem merely because someone experiences pain. Pain is a fact of life. It will happen to you, and it will happen very often. Refusing to see the upsides of a situation and labelling it negative or a problem

Neither do I, which is why I qualified. Pain is typically considered undesirable. it may be a fact of life, but so is death and disease we still treat those as negative. Perception is normally not a matter of choice, generally speaking either a person can see upsides or they cannot.

As for myself I would label a situation as negative if the value of items considered to be negative, exceeded the value of items considered to be positive, value being extrinsic and subjective by definition means this will vary between and even for individuals.
I may also consider a set of situations to be generally positive, while individual situations within the set are negative.

I share your concerns about assigning blame In the situations I believe the term has applicability assigning blame is, as far as I can tell, unreasonable.

You keep painting the friendzone as this innocent, harmless thing that is used by the poor, pitiable victim of unrequited love.

I am unconvinced that the concept or term is intrinsically harmful.
I have made no statement regarding the people who use this term, not everyone will use the same term to mean the same thing and since I have no data on the mainstream usage of this term I can only go by what various dictionaries, and that 'friends' episode defined it as.

(Snip)

Nobody has ever forwarded the idea "men and women can't be friends" to me, I do remember hearing "boys and girls can't be friends" which should indicate something to you about what stage in my life I heard it. Since I haven't heard the suggestion as an adult, I cannot comment fairly.

And I am similarly unconvinced that the use of the word is harmless, innocent or merely descriptive. I am completely convinced that it is a word meant to justify and validate playing the victim

Then we may be at an impasse, I don't see the term as being inherently harmful, you do.

Edit: omission. Going to attempt to reduce this in size.

 

[Darken12]

Then we may be at an impasse, I don't see the term as being inherently harmful, you do.

I've quickly come to realise that we're just not speaking on the same terms. We do not share the same experiences, opinions, definitions, priorities or interpretations, so we're really just arguing in circles here. Sorry if this seems rude, but I don't really know what else to say. Practically every point you make could be countered with "I just don't see it that way", so we'll have to agree to disagree, seems like.