Jimquisition: Sexual Failing

[RedmistSM]

I'm not sure the relationship stuff is the first thing Bioware needs to improve in their character writing. I would love it if you got into a relationship with a character at the start and then the rest of that relationship chain was getting to know them, having ups and downs, going on adventures. But I think it makes a certain amount of sense to save... I don't know where I was going with that, give me a relationship after a few interactions and then make the rest of that relationship play out over the course of the game! At least have it be an option with one of the characters. It makes sense for there to be different ways to enter a relationship with a character, all of them don't have to be friends to lovers, and it's more fun if it's there the whole game.

What I was going to say about character writing was that Bioware should have characters talk to each other more. Maybe it's changed from Jade Empire/Mass Effect 1/2/Dragon Age 1, but I don't remember most of my party members becoming a good team of friends. Your party members shouldn't split up between games, representatives of various races gathering together under the banner of.. well, me, barely getting along with each other or exchanging a word. They should talk, and argue, and be there all the time, all of them. It's the one character-specific thing jrpgs like the Tales of-games do better than Bioware.

 

[generals3]

No, I don't agree that is all there is to it. Sure, I might be disappointed that someone I'm attracted to doesn't reciprocate. But I wouldn't go as far as making up a term like "friend zone" for it. The fact that this term was created is indicative of objectification of the other person for purposes of sex.

Only for those who seem to make a hobby out of vilifying "complaining" coming from men. (Because usually such interpretations are combined with allegations it's a man-only thing)

The first time i heard the term was in the first season of friends. Joey used when telling Ross if he didn't make his move on Rachel he would be stuck in the friendzone. Sex wasn't even part of the conversation, it was love. Ross was in love with Rachel and he didn't dare to do anything about it. And I have seen the term often being used that way. Actually it's because of the "innocence" of the word it is being abused by dicks who feel entitled to whatever and try to gather empathy by using the "friend zone" expression. But not only isn't the expression meant to refer to such a scenario it still often doesn't.

You don't even have to look beyond this thread to see that there is more to it than simply wanting more from a relationship - for example the guy who asked why they would ever want to be in a platonic friendship with a female who they couldn't have sex with. Actual platonic relationships can be extremely rewarding and satisfying, especially when they are with people who differ from yourself (such as by gender, race, socio-economic status, interests, etc.) and diminishing all that to a "friend zone" seems extremely cheap and somewhat insulting.

I'll admit I didn't read the ten pages (came too late to the party), could you refer me to the post in question for some context?

I feel similarly about some of the people up-thread who equate "being nice to someone" as buying them gifts or dinner, etc. Or that agreeing to go on a date is somehow "leading them on" - they don't seem to understand that relationships are more about getting to know somebody, not trinkets. If the object of your desire needs to be "bribed" with gifts (as others, not you, have contended) and is the kind of person who would respond to that, you might be looking in the wrong place.

Back to the first point - "friend zone" suffers from the same problems that most such shorthand terms do - they reduce a complex issue to a buzzword. This means that rather than learning from their experience, and improving themselves as a result, the person just dumps all their angst into this buzzword.

I love how you manage to spin everything in the worst ways. "bribing" ... What about people who see gifts as a sign the other cares? Gift giving is still pretty common and still seen as a sign of caring by many. And this can easily lead to someone thinking you don't care if you don't give anything. It may be misguided but surely not as bad as you make it look like. And where was "being nice to someone" equated to buying gifts and dinner? And mind there is a difference between saying that giving gifts and buying dinner is a nice thing to do and reducing being nice to these materialistic acts.

The word actually works pretty well to describe what has to be described. The word itself describes the situation in which someone is, not why. Any reasons gathered from the word "friend zone" are pure speculation. And usually there are only two kind of people who make such speculations: The anti-men side and the anti-women side. The one side fabricates all kinds of reasons which consists of vilifying the user of the word (usually assumed to be men) while the other fabricates all kinds of reasons which consists of vilifying the person who "friendzoned" (usually assumed to be women). Most others know that the word describes nothing more than the fact someone is seen as a friend while said person wants more than friendship.

 

[HalfTangible]

I find sex disgusting enough on its own. But you're exactly right - sex is handled poorly in video games, and this is a very good articulation of how.

How sad is it that a sexist and stupid idea my 6-year-old self had about how relationships worked (short version: Friendship with a girl [a teenager who had previously said she was in love with me] was a lie and love was a form of mind control) feels closer to the truth than sex as the endgame?

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

i thought the friend zone was where you were interested in a girl, but it didnt spark, and she'll never see you "that way"

so you're infactuated with someone who'll never return thefeeling

 

[ForumSafari]

But is it a "bad" thing? I think it's just a thing. Nobody gets to have "something more" with every single person they have feelings for. What makes that bad? That's just human society. It would be physically and mathematically impossible for all feelings to be requited.

No one said they had a right to it, they just want it, in fact if they're honest with themselves half the time they don't actually want to be the person's friend, that relationship isn't what they're after at all. Classic lack of communication, you end up being nice because the nice guy gets the girl, except that doesn't work because girls actually are attracted to people physically so whoops. Girls do, however, generally want to be friends with nice guys so look where the two find each other.

Now, if you "care deeply" about somebody, then why would you refer to that relationship by a term as cheap and tacky as "friend zone"?

It's an observation of your situation. Originally it is from an episode of Friends which passed it off as a joke but the phrase so perfectly describes the situation that it was referenced way beyond the actual humour of the line. The situation between Ross and Rachel is so instantly familiar to a lot of men, normally from their teenage years, that it became a shorthand for the incredibly common situation you found yourself in. It's also not generally something you say TO the other person so you can name it whatever the hell you want.

And if it's not about sex, and you are her friend, then what is it about? What's the "something more" that is not covered by either sex or friendship? Unless you have some kind of radical re-definition of the term, "friend zone" is a term that is all about sex.

Umm, love and affection? Do you honestly think a partner is just a friend you fuck?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Only for those who seem to make a hobby out of vilifying "complaining" coming from men. (Because usually such interpretations are combined with allegations it's a man-only thing)

No, I don't think so. That's certainly not a hobby of mine, and I think this does also apply to females, although probably less often then it does to males.

The first time i heard the term was in the first season of friends. Joey used when telling Ross if he didn't make his move on Rachel he would be stuck in the friendzone. Sex wasn't even part of the conversation, it was love.

"Making a move" obviously refers to sexual intent. If it was about love, then how does being in the "friend zone" negate that? It is possible to have love between friends without sex. The "friend zone" is clearly about sex, in both the Friends TV show, and in its common contemporary usage. What was Joey talking about if not sex, when he wanted to "make a move"?

You don't even have to look beyond this thread to see that there is more to it than simply wanting more from a relationship - for example the guy who asked why they would ever want to be in a platonic friendship with a female who they couldn't have sex with. Actual platonic relationships can be extremely rewarding and satisfying, especially when they are with people who differ from yourself (such as by gender, race, socio-economic status, interests, etc.) and diminishing all that to a "friend zone" seems extremely cheap and somewhat insulting.

I'll admit I didn't read the ten pages (came too late to the party), could you refer me to the post in question for some context?

1. uanime5 on how "American Women" need to be bribed with financial services in order to enter a relationship:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.831719.20309709

2. krazykidd on how he would never have a platonic relationship with a woman, and "buying her shit" means he expects sex.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.831719.20310119

I love how you manage to spin everything in the worst ways. "bribing" ... What about people who see gifts as a sign the other cares? Gift giving is still pretty common and still seen as a sign of caring by many.

I refer you to the above links of posters on this very thread considering gifts and "being nice" as some kind of a pre-order for sexual intercourse.

I will also say that many people don't find this form of "being nice" as, well, being nice. It is often seen as a creepy attempt to buy affection, intimacy or sex. As it frequently is. Why do you think Valentine's Day is such a big industry, for example? There's a big difference between actually being nice or actually being a friend, and going through these superficial motions.

And where was "being nice to someone" equated to buying gifts and dinner?

In many videogames (easily demonstrated if you have played more than a few games), and in the comments referenced above.

Most others know that the word describes nothing more than the fact someone is seen as a friend while said person wants more than friendship.

I really don't think that most people who use the term mean it that way. It seems to me that it usually comes with a side-serving of entitlement, whining, contempt, or even hostility.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Jim is wrong about the friendzone. The friendzone is just another word to describe unrequited love and limerence.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Umm, love and affection? Do you honestly think a partner is just a friend you fuck?

No, I don't.

But how is love and affection not possible in a friendship? Those are essentially the foundations of friendship. So, why would the "friend zone" exclude those things? It's clearly about sex, or at least physical contact like kissing (which is on the spectrum of sexual relations).

 

[Moth_Monk]

Umm, love and affection? Do you honestly think a partner is just a friend you fuck?

No, I don't.

But how is love and affection not possible in a friendship? Those are essentially the foundations of friendship. So, why would the "friend zone" exclude those things? It's clearly about sex, or at least physical contact like kissing (which is on the spectrum of sexual relations).

Sex can be a form of love and affection. It's not mutually exclusive. Wanting to have sex with someone can be part of wanting them to reciprocate your feelings for them.

This is basic stuff. Funny that it needs to be explained.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Jim is wrong about the friendzone. The friendzone is just another word to describe unrequited love and limerence.

Yes, but "unrequited love" has the exact same problem as "friend zone" - it contains the expectation that it should be requited. I'm of the opinion that love still exists even if it is not returned, and that if you think it's a bad thing that the love isn't returned, it's not real love.

I think people are confusing love with their desire to be satisfied. For example, upthread somebody used the term "deeply caring" for somebody. If you care so deeply about somebody, what should matter is what they want, not what you want. So, if they choose to partner with somebody else, you should be happy, because you care so deeply about what they want, and they are getting it.

Sex can be a form of love and affection. It's not mutually exclusive. Wanting to have sex with someone can be part of wanting them to reciprocate your feelings for them.

This is basic stuff. Funny that it needs to be explained.

But I was responding specifically to a comment about it not being about sex. Yes, sex is a form of intimacy, and can be about love and affection. But that was not what was being discussed. I was asking what form of "something more" would not be covered by friendship without sex.

The "friend zone" pretty obviously includes sex, and while that may include other forms of love and intimacy, the common usage is that it's about someone who will not enter into a sexual or romantic relationship with somebody who desires one.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Jim is wrong about the friendzone. The friendzone is just another word to describe unrequited love and limerence.

Yes, but "unrequited love" has the exact same problem as "friend zone" - it contains the expectation that it should be requited. I'm of the opinion that love still exists even if it is not returned, and that if you think it's a bad thing that the love isn't returned, it's not real love.

There's different kinds of love. The desire to have your romanitc love for someone requited is a natural part of that emotion. In fact, I'd say it's part of what defines it.

 

[Moth_Monk]

"Friend Zone" is about sex, not other forms of love and intimacy.

No that's wrong. You clearly misunderstand the concept.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It is a bad thing to be thought of as just a friend by someone you care deeply for and want more with, it has nothing to do with sex either, why must everything men feel for women be reduced to wanting to fuck them? My relationship with my girlfriend isn't built on sex and never was.

But is it a "bad" thing? I think it's just a thing. Nobody gets to have "something more" with every single person they have feelings for. What makes that bad? That's just human society. It would be physically and mathematically impossible for all feelings to be requited.

Now, if you "care deeply" about somebody, then why would you refer to that relationship by a term as cheap and tacky as "friend zone"?

And if it's not about sex, and you are her friend, then what is it about? What's the "something more" that is not covered by either sex or friendship? Unless you have some kind of radical re-definition of the term, "friend zone" is a term that is all about sex.

It is a bad thing if you can't alter your mindset or let go of your desires, yes.

Base logic might dictate that being friends is the 2nd best option if romance is off the table. The problem with that is that you might well torture yourself watching your desired one have your desired relationship with people who aren't you, and being around said person is a good way to stop yourself moving on too (this happens).

A lot of people would be well off cutting ties, at least for a period once they know that their feelings are unrequited.

You don't have to think of either side as being malevolent, be it "expecting sex" or "leading people on". That obviously can occur, but (from my own limited experience) doesn't seem to be the common reality. Most of what I've seen is just unfortunate, simple one-sided feelings.

 

[ForumSafari]

No, I don't.

But how is love and affection not possible in a friendship? Those are essentially the foundations of friendship. So, why would the "friend zone" exclude those things? It's clearly about sex, or at least physical contact like kissing (which is on the spectrum of sexual relations).

It's difficult to describe to someone who hasn't experienced this kind of love but it's not the same at all, it's much more intimate and forms a far deeper partnership. Unfortunately if you don't understand the difference I'm finding it impossible to explain it, though it also means you're not really in a position to tell people what they mean when they say it since you don't understand it, as evinced by the fact that everyone is disgreeing.

I think we have an impasse.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

There's different kinds of love. The desire to have your romanitc love for someone requited is a natural part of that emotion. In fact, I'd say it's part of what defines it.

So, where does the "friend" part come into it? If your goal is a romantic relationship, but the other person only wants to be a friend, then calling it the "friend zone" is neither friendship or love. Either be a real friend to them, or part ways because your only interest in them was romantic/sexual.

I say romantic/sexual because there's so little separation between the two. It is technically possible to have romantic relationships without a sexual element, but it is extremely rare. Even if you aren't having intercourse, the sexual thoughts and feeling are typically there.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It's difficult to describe to someone who hasn't experienced this kind of love but it's not the same at all, it's much more intimate and forms a far deeper partnership. Unfortunately if you don't understand the difference I'm finding it impossible to explain it,

What makes you think I haven't experienced it or don't understand it? I certainly have, and your insinuation that I don't is mildly insulting. I have spent a few decades working through such feelings and relationships to come to my current opinion on it.

... though it also means you're not really in a position to tell people what they mean when they say it since you don't understand it, as evinced by the fact that everyone is disagreeing.

Firstly, who is "everyone" - and how is people having different opinions "evidence" of anything?

 

[generals3]

The first time i heard the term was in the first season of friends. Joey used when telling Ross if he didn't make his move on Rachel he would be stuck in the friendzone. Sex wasn't even part of the conversation, it was love.

"Making a move" obviously refers to sexual intent. If it was about love, then how does being in the "friend zone" negate that? It is possible to have love between friends without sex. The "friend zone" is clearly about sex, in both the Friends TV show, and in its common contemporary usage. What was Joey talking about if not sex, when he wanted to "make a move"?

It wasn't about sex it was about Ross telling her how he feels. If you saw friends you'd know Ross wasn't the kind of guy who was just chasing sex and Joey in season 1 was less of a stereotypical macho too. (He was flanderized over time)

It was a convo in which he explained Ross they would never be together if all he did was just waiting and being a good friend. He was talking relationship, as in being "together".

You seem to make assumptions about it being "all about sex" quite often...

1. uanime5 on how "American Women" need to be bribed with financial services in order to enter a relationship

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.831719.20309709

I'm not acquainted with american dating customs. But I can imagine that some still feel like you need to buy dinner/give gift to prove "your caring". There is a big nuance between saying that giving gifts suggests you might a nice guy and saying that it makes you instantly a nice guy (there is a difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient and necessary condition). Nor anything else actually. All it says is that in the experience of person X women expect X. Now this maybe a misconception based on anecdotal evidence but I wouldn't see it as anything more. These types of misconception only become truly bad if there is a feeling of entitlement of sex in case gifts are given. (which I would also find an abhorrent mindset)

2. krazykidd on how he would never have a platonic relationship with a woman, and "buying her shit" means he expects sex.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.831719.20310119

Based on the content of the post I think you misunderstood "expect". It doesn't refer to a feeling of entitlement. Just an expectation. And the only thing that this implies is that Kidd is kind of cheap on that aspect and would only invest money if there is something sexual to be gained. Kind of corrupts the whole act of giving things, sure, but nothing abhorrent. And the rest merely suggests that Kid doesn't need more friends and is just fine with having his guy friends as friends. My guess is that he simply never met a girl who is more fun to hang out with just as a friend than the friends he already has. And tbh it doesn't surprise me that much. I have had more success having "friend" fun with guys than girls. (usually because our interests seem to be more in line)

(not quoting what comes below because i integrated the responses above)

 

[ForumSafari]

I certainly have, and your insinuation that I don't is mildly insulting.

I spend most of my online time posting on 4chan, mildly insulting someone on the Internet doesn't much bother me to be honest.

Firstly, who is "everyone" - and how is people having different opinions "evidence" of anything?

Everyone to whom you are currently replying, this entire thread is you saying things and other people disagreeing. You'll probably never have actual proof of what people think but at some point you have to accept that for at least some people there is a feeling between friendship and orgasm and that is what they want from a partner.

Currently what you're doing is telling birds how flying feels.

 

[Oroboros]

Completely baffling that folks in this very thread are bringing up the Witcher as a positive example of romance/sex in games. A significant number of quests revolve around the "sex as reward" mentality thing that Jim was talking about, not to mention that horrible collectable sex card thing the game has going on. a shame, because other than the creepy way the game handles sex, it's a rather good game.

 

[Torque2100]

Honestly, this is the first time I really thought that Jim was completely full of it. I know, I know he's a comedian I shouldn't get upset about anything they say but it's hard to be in on the joke when the joke is at your expense, which I feel it was since I like these games. I do take issue with many of his claims particularly where they deal with pre-EA bioware titles. Yes, this includes Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. Development of both was essentially finished when EA bought the company.

Both Mass Effect and Dragon Age altered your relationship with characters forever if you chose to romance them. Sex was NOT just a reward for good behavior despite what Jim may have said. In fact, one particular attention getting scene in Dragon Age: Origins happens if you try to romance Leliana and Morrigan at the same time. Leliana will call you out on it and point out how it's hurtful to both herself and Morrigan. This changes your relationship to these characters forever, depending on the ending they might end up with you in a permanent relationship or your love might be cut short by circumstances, but it's never truly forgotten (ie Alistair).

Is this a 100% accurate simulation of a relationship? Of course not, but neither are the relationships presented in novels or movies. I have yet to see such blanket condemnation leveled at the Film or Paperback publishing industries.

This is easily the worst Jimquisition video I have ever seen and I love most of them. In this one, though Jim Sterling has lowered himself to Anita Sarkesian levels of bull. His examples are Cherry Picked, he plays a game of constantly shifting goal posts and ignores titles which would satisfy his ultimately arbitrary goals he sets for the industry.

Now to the discussion of the "Friend Zone" I have seen this term bandied about as a blanket condemnation of men. A suggestion that all Nerds are creepy skeezy guys who hang around young women harassing them and then act like spoiled, entitled babies when the women don't "reward" them with sex. Well, in my life I have seen this happen to others, had it happen to me and I can safely say that the women are not always blameless victims. Quite the opposite infact. I have seen numerous situations where a lady, upon realizing she has an admirer who lacks experience and might be naive or gullible, is only to happy to manipulate the poor bastard. Manipulate him, they do. She convinces this "friend" to buy her gifts, interpose himself between her and other men she has used up and discarded and generally monopolizes his time and attention. Is the guy blameless, of course not all he had to do was realize he was being manipulated and walk away, but does he no. All too often, people are far better at deceiving themselves than even they realize. There are plent of times I wish I could go back in time and slap my old self. I was 17 and a dumb kid at the time, but there comes time when you need to realize what's happening and move on.