Lol Friend-zone

[The Heik]

Wait, memes have actually gotten popular enough for people to believe that they exist in real life?

Quick sec.

Hey Satan? Everything alright down there? Uh-huh.........really?..........Ladies and gentlemen of the internet, Hell has actually frozen over! Grab you ice skates and head on over, because the world has officially gone bonkers!

Seriously, I don't get why anyone thought this was a thing. Relationships are far too complex to be explained in such a way, and I find it ludicrous that people would even consider it remotely legitimate.

 

[Darken12]

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying entirely here, and it's not really relevant to the main part of the argument. I was saying that, in some hypothetical version of existence in which 'sex as reward' would have none of the problems or consequences you mentioned, it would be nice for that to exist. In real life, I am fully aware that it is nothing like that and can never be anything like that, and would not want it to be because of how unfair it would be on whoever was forced to give this 'reward-sex'. I know sex should be between two consenting adults who are enjoying themselves equally. I know this other conception of sex is an unhealthy view of the world, but all I said was that I can understand why people would wish that, in some hypothetical scenario, it would be that way.

All right, fair enough. You get to dream of that, I get to dream of a world where sex isn't a big deal at all and most men actually have a spine.

Fair enough if that's been your experience of the term, it has not been mine, I've heard it used perfectly innocently plenty of times, but what I am arguing here is that there is not any inherent misogyny in being upset about being rejected, and using this term to describe that rejection.

This hasn't been only my experience. Why do you think so many women get angry at this attitude? Go and do a google search of the word friendzone and start reading up on how men actually react to it. Maybe it's the internet effect, sure, where anonymity and impunity get together to empower and magnify rage, but there is still rage in there, and there is still plenty of woman-blaming.

I agree that there is no inherent misogyny in being upset at rejection. However, most men don't stop there. Most men don't want to admit that their current situation is their own doing, and their fragile egos need to make someone else responsible for their misfortune. At best, they blame fate/the universe/god/etc. That's fine. It's denial, but it's not misogynistic. My problem is when those men start listing all the ways in which this woman has done them harm (or has not done right by them) and paint themselves as innocent victims who have done absolutely no wrong.

Well then, you're a dick. You might be very mature and good at suppressing your feelings, but that doesn't entitle you to look down on everyone who can't control their strong emotions as being like teenagers. And no, your emotions do not control your actions entirely, but in a situation where you really care about someone they make it very difficult/emotionally painful not to act on those feelings. Honestly that line about me having a 'dangerous lack of empathy' a while back sounds incredibly hypocritical coming from you considering you absolutely refuse to show any sympathy for anyone who ever acts on their emotions. Becoming an adult does not mean becoming a robot. It's about taking responsibility for your actions, yes, but if someone acts foolishly or wrongly out of strong emotion you should still feel some kind of pity.

My lack of sympathy doesn't stem from the fact that those men couldn't control their emotions. My lack of sympathy stems from not owning up to their own fuck ups. I do not pity the man who acts on his emotions and then refuses to admit he has done anything wrong. That's the part you're missing. I don't feel sorry for a man who keeps insisting that the person he punched "made them do it" or "provoked them". Fucking up is allowed, but you have to admit you fucked up and be sorry or make amends. You don't get to fuck up, refuse to admit you were in the wrong, and then expect sympathy.

You know what kind of guy I feel sorry for? The guy who blurts his feelings to his female friend, gets rejected, and then admits he didn't handle things right. I feel sorry for that guy, the one that feels bad that he made his female friend feel uncomfortable and worries about what he did to her instead of wallowing in self-pity while the woman gets left to handle the aftermath on her own.

Yeah, perhaps in an ideal world sex would be considered less important. But sexual desire is a very basic, very strong biological impulse, and however much you talk about controlling your emotions it remains a difficult thing to do for the average person.

The strength of the drive is not biological, it's cultural. There has been proven variance in the importance given to sex drive in cultures and the consequent intensity of its members' sex drive. A sex-focused culture will believe that sex drives are this uncontrollable thing that cannot be fought, while a non-sex-focused culture will treat it like any other impulse. When you are living in sex-focused culture that tightly restricts female sexual behaviour, but lets men get away with anything, you end up with men who believe themselves blameless for anything they do in the pursuit of sex, and women who know better.

No. It's perfectly possible to do something at the time because you felt it was the right thing to do, and still later become bitter about having seen no kind of karmic reward for it. I'm not gonna claim it's a very productive mindset because there's no way thinking like that's going to help you get what you want, but to reduce it to 'You're upset about not being rewarded for your good actions? Then they must have been motivated entirely by the desire for reward!' is, again, oversimplifying.

The amount of double-thinking necessary for you to construct that paragraph would make Orwell proud.

Just because there's a time lag between doing the nice action and expecting the reward doesn't mean you are a selfless person. It might make you less selfish (as there are entire shades and scales of selfishness), but the very act of wanting to be rewarded for your kind actions means that they weren't entirely selfless. That's what selfless means: you do something because it's what you think it's morally right, period. That's why selflessness is hard and selfishness is the norm, because it's not something anyone can easily pull off. It takes a significant amount of self-restraint and focusing on other people, rather than yourself. The selfless act has to be its own reward. It cannot be, at any point of the timeline (before, during or after the act) be self-serving or beneficial for you. That's why you reject payment for any nice things you do. It's not to score extra brownie points with whoever you're trying to impress, it's because receiving payment or any benefit voids the selflessness of the act.

That's the problem with "nice guys", they think altruism and selflessness are things to be peddled in exchange for sex, a relationship or whatever they want from life. That ruins the entire point of those virtues. That's why they're often accompanied by modesty, too, because receiving social admiration for them is a form of payment. Altruism isn't a tool for bragging or humblebragging, it's a deeply spiritual aspect of your religion, ethics code or spirituality.

 

[Moth_Monk]

I'm not sure if anyone has already posted this, but here's a great video from VSauce on the friendzone


He hits the nail on the head.

 

[Vegosiux]

Precludes women from being at fault for what? Not wanting to fuck you?

If the woman doesn't want to fuck a guy, she should tell him that, and if the guy wants to walk away then, then fucking let him. It might be a dickish thing to do, but let him. But some women just like the pandering and the attention they get by letting the guy hope, so they let him because they know that if the guy walks, all that pandering and attention will be gone to. And that's a dickish thing to do as well.

But basically, and this is gender independent...

If A doesn't want to fuck B, and therefore wont, that's okay, but if B in turn does not want to be friends with A and therefore walks away that should be okay as well. It's just another rejection, and there's so much spouting about how on has to accept they sometimes get rejected around here it'd be hypocritical to call B an asshole for what they did.

That's why, I'll reiterate, I wish people would just bloody speak out straight about their motives and intentions so we don't have to deal with all this stuff we wouldn't need to deal with if we were honest and open with each other.

'Friendzone' is just a word used by guys that won't accept no for an answer.

And anybody that discusses whatever it's supposed to mean, or whatever it is supposed to mean.

(Hah, try to figure THAT one out!)

 

[Vegosiux]

I'd say it's pretty different to not want to fuck someone and to stop being friends with someone because they don't want to fuck you. The latter implies you weren't much of a friend in the first place.

Well, nobody's obligated to be friends with anyone for any reason. And as I've said in the next sentence of my post, honesty and open communication are what I see as paramount, so it's not like I'm taking sides here or anything. Everyone should nip it in the bud with all the vague manipulative stringing along for any reason, be it for sex or for the attention.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'd say it's pretty different to not want to fuck someone and to stop being friends with someone because they don't want to fuck you. The latter implies you weren't much of a friend in the first place.

Well, nobody's obligated to be friends with anyone for any reason. And as I've said in the next sentence of my post, honesty and open communication are what I see as paramount, so it's not like I'm taking sides here or anything. Everyone should nip it in the bud with all the vague manipulative stringing along for any reason, be it for sex or for the attention.

And I'm not obligated to save someone from dying even if it's easy but I'd still be an asshole not to, so that's a moot point. You don't need to be obligated to do something to be a jerk for not doing it. You're trying to oversimplify and ignoring other relevant factors. Like the fact that pretending to be someone's friend is a dick move. And if you're only doing it for sex you're pretending.

And why would I care if you're taking sides or not? I made a point, whether you're taking sides or not has nothing to do with that point. And not wanting to fuck someone is not the least bit manipulative.

Let me ask you one simple question.

Which part of "Everyone should be honest with everyone else" ignores the fact that pretending to be someone's friend is a dick move?

If anything, "Everyone should be honest with everyone else" includes "don't pretend to be someone's friend", don't you think?

So how about you quit pretending you read my posts and respond to what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I'd said?

 

[Vegosiux]

Because you're running from my point that you're equating two things that do not equate. Not wanting to fuck someone is not the same as someone not wanting to be someone else's friend anymore because they don't want to be in a relationship.

They're different, yes. I know. I never actually said otherwise, nor did I imply I thought otherwise, that's something you made up.

So what? What's your point? How does the fact that they're different oppose my own point of honesty and open communication being paramount, and my point that nobody should be forced or guilt tripped into something they don't want?

Please, if you want to oppose these two points with your own, be my guest and do so. But if you're only being confrontational, then please stop.

 

[lacktheknack]

*Enters Off-Topic*
.......again?....Christ above.
*Leaves Off-Topic*

No Don't Leave!

Just give us a chance, maybe have some wine, talk about gun control and circumcision? Eh? If that doesn't tickle your fancy, we'll treat you to a nice flamewar over feminism or post-count.

We can make this work......please just don't leave

I know how to keep him around!

HEY DIABLO! IF YOUR PET AND A STRANGER WERE IN A WHIRLPOOL, AND YOU COULD ONLY SAVE ONE...

OT: I've said my piece about this multiple times. Can't we talk about other things?

 

[Vegosiux]

Just because you're trying to flee from what you said earlier doesn't erase the fact you said it. Your new points are something you brought up as a distraction from what I was going after. Simply, your false comparison as if they were in fact similar.

Oh so we're stepping back from accusing me of "equating" two things to accusing me of saying they're "similar", are we?

Oh, and "new" points? I've already laid out that point about honesty and communication in the first post I made in this thread.

So please, stop pretending that I need to answer to your other points and can't point out something you compared that I am saying is inaccurate.

If you read the first post you responded to (which is not even my first post in the thread), you'd see that in that very post, I said the exact thing you later accused me of ignoring.

 

[In Search of Username]

This hasn't been only my experience. Why do you think so many women get angry at this attitude? Go and do a google search of the word friendzone and start reading up on how men actually react to it. Maybe it's the internet effect, sure, where anonymity and impunity get together to empower and magnify rage, but there is still rage in there, and there is still plenty of woman-blaming.

I agree that there is no inherent misogyny in being upset at rejection. However, most men don't stop there. Most men don't want to admit that their current situation is their own doing, and their fragile egos need to make someone else responsible for their misfortune. At best, they blame fate/the universe/god/etc. That's fine. It's denial, but it's not misogynistic. My problem is when those men start listing all the ways in which this woman has done them harm (or has not done right by them) and paint themselves as innocent victims who have done absolutely no wrong.

Fair enough, I've never gone searching for uses of the term, I'm just talking from my own experience of people I know using it, and most of that hasn't been misogynistic. But yeah I'm sure there's some pretty unpleasant stuff out there.

To be fair, other than blaming the woman, what HAVE they done wrong? I find it hard to see expressing your feelings for someone, no matter how awkward a situation it might create for both of you, as the wrong thing to do, when the other option is bottling up your emotions. Even if there is only a slim chance the other person will feel the same way (and it's often hard to tell for some people; I know I'm not good at reading people myself), I don't think it's wrong to ask, I don't think it's something you should suppress.

My lack of sympathy doesn't stem from the fact that those men couldn't control their emotions. My lack of sympathy stems from not owning up to their own fuck ups. I do not pity the man who acts on his emotions and then refuses to admit he has done anything wrong. That's the part you're missing. I don't feel sorry for a man who keeps insisting that the person he punched "made them do it" or "provoked them". Fucking up is allowed, but you have to admit you fucked up and be sorry or make amends. You don't get to fuck up, refuse to admit you were in the wrong, and then expect sympathy.

You know what kind of guy I feel sorry for? The guy who blurts his feelings to his female friend, gets rejected, and then admits he didn't handle things right. I feel sorry for that guy, the one that feels bad that he made his female friend feel uncomfortable and worries about what he did to her instead of wallowing in self-pity while the woman gets left to handle the aftermath on her own.

Again, continuing from what I said above, this assumes that expressing your feelings towards someone when you don't know if they feel the same is a bad deed comparable to punching someone. When you punch someone, you know you will hurt them, you are doing so intentionally. When you express your feelings to someone, you don't know what the result will be. They might be upset because they feel differently; on the other hand, they might have been upset if you had never asked because they felt the same but were too afraid to say. Maybe you can always tell easily whether someone likes you or not, but I know I can't, and many others can't, and if we didn't say anything to someone we liked until we were absolutely certain the feeling was mutual we'd never get anywhere at all. So it's pretty hard for me to see telling someone how you feel as 'wrong'.

The strength of the drive is not biological, it's cultural. There has been proven variance in the importance given to sex drive in cultures and the consequent intensity of its members' sex drive. A sex-focused culture will believe that sex drives are this uncontrollable thing that cannot be fought, while a non-sex-focused culture will treat it like any other impulse. When you are living in sex-focused culture that tightly restricts female sexual behaviour, but lets men get away with anything, you end up with men who believe themselves blameless for anything they do in the pursuit of sex, and women who know better.

Well, so what? We're still a product of our culture just like we're a product of our biology. I don't see this making much difference to my point.

The amount of double-thinking necessary for you to construct that paragraph would make Orwell proud.

Just because there's a time lag between doing the nice action and expecting the reward doesn't mean you are a selfless person. It might make you less selfish (as there are entire shades and scales of selfishness), but the very act of wanting to be rewarded for your kind actions means that they weren't entirely selfless. That's what selfless means: you do something because it's what you think it's morally right, period. That's why selflessness is hard and selfishness is the norm, because it's not something anyone can easily pull off. It takes a significant amount of self-restraint and focusing on other people, rather than yourself. The selfless act has to be its own reward. It cannot be, at any point of the timeline (before, during or after the act) be self-serving or beneficial for you. That's why you reject payment for any nice things you do. It's not to score extra brownie points with whoever you're trying to impress, it's because receiving payment or any benefit voids the selflessness of the act.

That's the problem with "nice guys", they think altruism and selflessness are things to be peddled in exchange for sex, a relationship or whatever they want from life. That ruins the entire point of those virtues. That's why they're often accompanied by modesty, too, because receiving social admiration for them is a form of payment. Altruism isn't a tool for bragging or humblebragging, it's a deeply spiritual aspect of your religion, ethics code or spirituality.

The time lag DOES mean, however, that the action was not motivated by the promise of reward when you originally performed said action. And, regardless, nobody is truly selfless, even good deeds you expect no reward for give you the reward of feeling good about having done them. The point is that you can want some kind of reward for something while not having actually done it simply in order to get that reward.

And, since you mention the spiritual side of things, Christians, for example, expect to be rewarded with eternal life for their good deeds. Does that void the selflessness of their actions too?

 

[Vegosiux]

And you did equate them. You made it seem like if you think one is okay you can't call someone an asshole for other.

Excuse me, how's that in any way "equating" two things?

I also think you can't call someone an asshole for helping an old lady across the street, but I'll be damned if I see how that means I'm "equating" helping an old lady across the street to not wanting to have sex with someone, just because I think you can't call someone an asshole for either.

You're trying to drag those points up when neither of them defend that nonsense where you compare them.

Compare. Yes, compare them, that I did. I don't remember when "compare" and "equate" began to be synonyms though.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Yay! Another irrational friendzone thread, like we didn't have enough of those.

Can't we just deal with this whole thing without anger or resentment?

Boy falls in love with girl. Boy is not the flirting type. Boy acts friendly towards girl. Boy becomes friends with girl. Boy gets rejected for anything more by girl. Boy is sad and emotional. Boy was in love. Boy shows anger and resentment.

Girl is approached by friendly boy. Girl would like friendship with boy. Girl becomes friends with boy. Girl rejects advances of boy. Girl is sad and emotional by boy being angry and resentful. Girl thought they were friends. Girl shows anger and resentment.

(substitute boy for girl or vice versa as applicable)

It's not complicated. Both sides have feelings and got those feeling hurts because they did not understand the feelings of the other side.

Getting rejected ain't easy and when you're in love you generally don't act fully rational.
Rejecting someone you like is just as hard and when you feel your friend has abandoned you you generally don't act entirely rational either.

It's just another 'thing' in the cesspit of teenage emotions and generally no longer viewed as existing or real by adults.

Seriously, dude. You rule.

Can we please stop tirading against people who aren't making a fuss here and now or don't definitively deserve it (like that football town rape thing, that seems pretty justified.) This is just a totally irrelevant rambling about someone who's not even present or bugging us right now and doesn't do much if any harm at all.

snip

The amount of generalization here is astounding. I assure you maybe a couple-hundred guys overreacting on the internet aren't "most men" in much the same way most women aren't in favour of getting rid of all men everywhere. You can still find a pretty siazeable following for it.

 

[TJC]

I love how many comments (especially first page) in here are people going "La La La, can't hear you, everything's fine and the women are t'bad". Lol, it's really better that way as it makes it easier for everyone else to spot them and keep them at arms length at all times.

I actually personally know a Nice Guy tm who is the SCARIEST person I know first hand. First of all, I'm MARRIED, and he comes up to me on steam chat every so often to puppy-dog eyes me for attention in the creepiest manner possible.

Quotes from him include: (not exact wording, but damn close)

-"Oh you're playing Fallout New Vegas! That's so Amazing! Will you marry me?"
-"OH WAIT" [long pause]

-"I haven't spoken to a woman in forever"
-"I have a weird question for you"
-"Have you ever fallen in love?"
[long pause]
Me:-"yes, with my husband"
-"Oh, that makes sense......"

I'd tell him to go away and never speak to me again but I am both too polite and I'm afraid he might take a 9 hour flight just to kill us both (me and my husband) in our beds in the night. I don't even know why he started talking to me -- or proposing to me -- considering I only knew him as a mild forum acquaintance.

That's probably because of your irresistible online aura that emanates from every word of every post on every forum you write in. While we're on that subject: Do you want to marry me?

OT: *sigh*

Apparently it's that time of the month when the obnoxious topics reappear like a period of mental blood phlegm. Better double-check the forums for any Sarkeesian posts (while we're at the whole misogyny steamroller)

Really, though, I stopped reading through these friendzone rants a long time ago because they are only two end results coming from these: a majority of women are stuck up bitches or a majority of men are dickhead who voluntarily chose to deny the brain any blood supply in favor for even bluer balls.

 

[Darken12]

Fair enough, I've never gone searching for uses of the term, I'm just talking from my own experience of people I know using it, and most of that hasn't been misogynistic. But yeah I'm sure there's some pretty unpleasant stuff out there.

To be fair, other than blaming the woman, what HAVE they done wrong? I find it hard to see expressing your feelings for someone, no matter how awkward a situation it might create for both of you, as the wrong thing to do, when the other option is bottling up your emotions. Even if there is only a slim chance the other person will feel the same way (and it's often hard to tell for some people; I know I'm not good at reading people myself), I don't think it's wrong to ask, I don't think it's something you should suppress.

What they have done wrong is that they have gone ahead to seek relief for a condition that they're experiencing (holding all those feelings inside) without caring about the potential consequences of doing so. I'm sure they're hoping for the best outcome, where the woman miraculously responds in kind and things work out well for everyone involved, but that's like any risky gamble where the outcome for your failure harms someone else. The payoff is always going to be good, sure, but not caring about what happens if you miss and hurt someone IS selfish. And it's even worse when you make it all about yourself. "Oh, sure, I missed that target and ended up shooting someone, but *I* am SO sad I didn't get what I wanted! You're so heartless for not feeling sorry for me!" And yes, you can always have a case where the woman isn't hurt or made uncomfortable or angry by the sudden declaration and pressure, but that's like miraculously missing both the target AND the bystander next to it. Just because dumb luck was on your side this time doesn't mean the endeavour was any less risky and irresponsible.

Again, continuing from what I said above, this assumes that expressing your feelings towards someone when you don't know if they feel the same is a bad deed comparable to punching someone. When you punch someone, you know you will hurt them, you are doing so intentionally. When you express your feelings to someone, you don't know what the result will be. They might be upset because they feel differently; on the other hand, they might have been upset if you had never asked because they felt the same but were too afraid to say. Maybe you can always tell easily whether someone likes you or not, but I know I can't, and many others can't, and if we didn't say anything to someone we liked until we were absolutely certain the feeling was mutual we'd never get anywhere at all. So it's pretty hard for me to see telling someone how you feel as 'wrong'.

What if the woman valued the man's friendship and now things are so awkward between them (or he's such a selfish twat) that she basically lost a friend through no fault of her own? What if she was made to suffer a really uncomfortable moment as she tried to tell her friend as kindly as possible that she just wasn't into him (and the dude was one of those insistent or clueless types)? What if the dude tells her this while she has a boyfriend, and it causes problems in their relationship? What if she's told him she experienced a similar situation in the past and he blithely makes her go through it again? The scenarios here are endless. There are only a couple of scenarios where things end up well or neutral for the girl, and a myriad where they turn out bad for her.

The key thing is that you are changing the relationship configuration without the woman's permission. She thinks you're her friend and that's it. Then one day, you confess and now the friendship might change irreparably. Not many friendships survive the confession, much less when the man acts surly because he didn't get his way. If you believe that relationships must evolve from friendships, then tell this to any potential female friends you make. Make sure she understands that you could confess feelings for her at any point. That's the least you can do for her.

But, again this is just typical spinelessness. A lot of men don't want to put themselves out there and be vulnerable until they can ensure the woman has a positive regard for them (because of all the nice things they've done for her). A lot of men are terrified to ask a stranger out and take advantage of the comfortable relationship they have with a friend to take a chance with someone who is likely to spare their feelings if they reject them. This is selfish.

Well, so what? We're still a product of our culture just like we're a product of our biology. I don't see this making much difference to my point.

That you can choose to ignore your culture. Obviously. If you are aware of the bullshit society tries to get you to buy, you can choose what to avoid. But, of course, in order to do this, you need to be constantly questioning yourself and society. You need to analyse everything you do, why you do it, and where it came from. But all that takes work, and it's so much easier to pretend we don't have control over what we do. Wouldn't it be so nice if that worked in court? "I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm a victim of my culture."

(That's why the 'videogames make you violent' argument doesn't work, by the way, because we are not robots whose actions are wholly determined by the input we receive. We are rational human beings with the capacity to decide for ourselves how to deal with that input.)

The time lag DOES mean, however, that the action was not motivated by the promise of reward when you originally performed said action. And, regardless, nobody is truly selfless, even good deeds you expect no reward for give you the reward of feeling good about having done them. The point is that you can want some kind of reward for something while not having actually done it simply in order to get that reward.

There are entire volumes on selflessness, including postulates about training yourself to feel nothing about the altruism you do, so that it is as pure and selfless as it can be (which is just one of the ways in which your 'nobody is truly selfless' argument can be summarily debunked). Don't handwave millennia of philosophy, theology, academic lore and introspection so that a bunch of guys can feel better about themselves for being manipulative. If you expect a reward for an allegedly selfless deed, it stops being selfless. It doesn't mean it's as selfish to want the reward afterwards than it is to want it before, but wanting the reward and claiming selflessness are two incompatible stances. Otherwise, it wouldn't be selfless.

And, since you mention the spiritual side of things, Christians, for example, expect to be rewarded with eternal life for their good deeds. Does that void the selflessness of their actions too?

Yes, of course. Like I said, there has been a lot written on the subject, and many Christians (paraphrasing here, since I'm not one) firmly believe that altruism for the sake of some eternal reward voids the point of altruism in the first place. They believe that doing altruism for a nice afterlife is completely missing the point of what Jesus was trying to tell them.

The amount of generalization here is astounding. I assure you maybe a couple-hundred guys overreacting on the internet aren't "most men" in much the same way most women aren't in favour of getting rid of all men everywhere. You can still find a pretty siazeable following for it.

There are plenty of comedians, misogynistic guy-centric movies, and TV space in talk shows/pop psychology shows/etc., news articles, columns and the like, to imply that while the amount of bile and anger is exclusive to the internet, yes, the friendzone is seen as a universally negative and undesirable thing, and Western culture in general has men operating on similar views.

You know why I generalise? Because everyone wants to be the exception. Everyone wants to feel that sure, all those other guys really are manipulative jerks or overreacting misogynists, but not them. Their circumstances are special! Their female friend really was a horrible person! So while sure, I can assume some of those special cases must exist (if only due to sheer statistical probability), I prefer to err on the side of repeatedly insisting men should self-examine their actions and attitudes. Introspection is never a bad thing. Excusing bad behaviour, on the other hand, can lead to unfavourable outcomes.

 

[Reikan]

If I'm interested in a girl specifically it's because I want her vagina. The "Friend zone" to me is basically an attempt at a less harsh rejection. I have friends, I'm not looking for more friends. Any attempt to be "friends" will result in me turning around and walking away, never to contact you again.

Don't worry I'm not the manipulative sort, it will never be a mystery to you that I am trying to get in your pants.