I am going to preface my response by linking to this Wikipedia article: Agency [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)]. As a person who consistently scores high levels of agency in all my psychometrics, everything I say is coloured by my unwavering confidence in this human quality.
In Search of Username said:
So... what? If you're not certain your feelings will be reciprocated, you just shouldn't try because it's too 'irresponsible'? You should just remain alone forever because asking someone out is always too risky?
What? Who's saying you can't ask a stranger out? When you ask a stranger out, you're not jeopardising anything. You're not betraying her trust. When you ask a friend out (a friend who had no idea you would even do that), you are jeopardising a friendship that you clearly don't value as much as a potential relationship, making your friend uncomfortable, perhaps betraying her trust (if she trusted you wouldn't pull that bullshit on her) and then getting angry when things don't go your way. When you're friends with a woman, declaring your feelings for her when you're unsure if she'll reciprocate IS irresponsible. She's not some stranger you owe nothing to, she's your friend, and you owe her the same amount of respect and consideration you would give a male friend.
Stop saying you value the friendship of women if you don't have some kind of code of ethics with her (like the codes you have with your male friends).
In Search of Username said:
Tell everyone I meet that I could possibly find attractive that relationships can evolve from friendships? Why? I'm pretty sure they know that. That's not a weird thing. The fact that relationships can grow out of friendships is not a controversial opinion, like, at all.
It's an
incredibly controversial opinion. You know what, you guys are unbelievable. We spend hours telling women that we're not all horndogs, that we do believe in friendship between men and women, that we aren't ruled by our dicks, and so on, and then you go and say that all your female friends should assume you can randomly declare you have feelings for her. Way to prove the misandrists right, guys! You can't have it both ways, dude. You can't say you value friendships with women and simultaneously be willing to sacrifice them for sex whenever you want. And way to prove me right, too, with my previous assertions on spinelessness. What you just said is absolutely spineless. You want to get the brownie points for being friends with women while simultaneously keeping all your doors open in the odd chance you randomly manage to emotionally manipulate a woman into sleeping with you. Being friends with someone means that there are certain things you don't do to them, out of respect and affection. You do not spring unwanted sexual or romantic advances on a friend (even if the sexualities are compatible), without making sure that they feel the same way (though in that case, the advances won't be unwanted, I guess).
That's how you prove you value a woman's friendship. If you say "Oh, sure, I'll be your friend, but I will always be keeping the possibility of sex open in my mind" it seriously undermines your assertion that you value her friendship. How can she know you really do value it, and you don't value the sex you're hoping to have with her later on? If you tell a woman "I do not intend to sleep with you, ever, I just want to be friends," THEN she can be sure you really and truly do value her friendship. A lot of women (if not most) really do mean "just friends" when they become your friend. That's why there are so many instances of the friendzone, because a lot of women don't want anything more than that!
In Search of Username said:
The sheer lack of sympathy in your third paragraph there kind of makes me completely hate you. Like, really, I try not to get too annoyed by people on the internet but Christ, how are you that unpleasant a person? It's 'selfish' to not be particularly confident with women? I don't even know how to respond to that level of stupidity. Are... are you trolling?
It's not about confidence. It's about respect. If you respect a woman, you will be upfront with her, because you want her to be informed and not taken by surprise by any unwanted advances. In theory,
you care about her, and this means
you wish to spare her hurt, awkwardness or feeling uncomfortable. It's also about learning what she wants out of a relationship with you. If she values your friendship (as proven by the men who whine about the friendzone when they say "But she said so many nice things about me!"), taking into consideration what she wants is proof that you respect her as a human being and as a friend. If so many guys would avoid dating their friend's girlfriends/exes/sisters/mothers/etc because of some intangible "bro code", why wouldn't you do the same for your female friend?
In Search of Username said:
The 'videogames make you violent' argument doesn't work because videogame violence does not resemble real-life violence and because videogames are just one small part of our culture, there are many many other influences on people. Whereas the combined peer-pressure of an entire sex-focused society is a little harder to shrug off. Of course you can ignore your culture, but it's not as easy as you seem to imply. But then again, this is coming from the person who says it's selfish not to be basically infallible in your dealings with the opposite sex, so I guess you're not gonna have much sympathy for people who have difficulty shaking off the influences of their culture either.
That's true, I don't. When you reach a certain age, you start getting a feel for how the world works, and you start realising, at least on a subconscious level, that society is constantly bombarding you with (often self-contradicting) messages. It might not consciously hit you until later, but everyone is aware of this on some level. Peer pressure is a far more "in your face" effect that most people encounter relatively early in their lives. When you are confronted by it, you consciously choose to acquiesce to it in order to enjoy social benefits. Conforming has benefits, this is indisputable. That's why few people actually qualify as "victims" of peer pressure. People who do as they're told and try to blend in are, instead, silent accomplices. This "difficulty" you speak of when it comes to resisting societal conditioning and peer pressure are not due to the insurmountable power of social relations, but out of the person's own decision not to face the consequences of resisting (and losing the benefits of conforming).
In Search of Username said:
Yes but even if absolute selflessness is possible, the VAST majority of people are not selfless. Not being selfless does not make you a bad person by any means. My point was that you seemed to be claiming a man who was upset about not being rewarded for his good deeds was absolutely selfish, which is just as ridiculous as saying he was absolutely selfless. It's obviously not completely selfless or selfish, it's just an average, reasonable thing to be upset about.
I never said people who weren't selfless were completely selfish. In fact, I mentioned the fact that there were degrees and scales of selfishness at least twice. And in no point I mentioned that being selfish made you a bad person. We're all selfish, it's part of human nature. Selfishness is highly beneficial to ensure your own survival. What I am condemning is
not owning up to it. That's the part you keep missing in all these different prongs of the argument. You keep debating me on abstract levels, far removed from the things I am actually condemning. I am not condemning selfishness, cowardice or weakness. We all suffer from these flaws. What I am condemning is obfuscation. Pretending that friendzoned guys are innocent victims devoid of flaw and fault makes me raving mad.
You are selfish, weak and cowardly. We all are. It's called the human condition. Stop pretending that you aren't. Don't blame the woman, don't blame the unfairness of the universe. Do some introspection and try to be a better person. Blaming the woman or the fates is not going to make you any less flawed. The first step in our way to become better people is to admit that we have flaws, and this childish act of hurling blame at anything but themselves is what kills whatever sympathy I may have for "friendzoned" men.
EDIT: I was advised to clarify that I have nothing against informing a girl that you have feelings for her. Informing her of feelings you have is okay, since it fosters honesty in a friendship. What I am ranting against is confessing your feelings and trying to pursue sex or a relationship with the girl. Saying "I have feelings for you, but they won't get in the way of our friendship" is awesome. Saying "I have feelings for you and I want us to have sex ASAP" is a completely different kettle of fish.
klaynexas3 said:
How is A doing the same thing that B is? A wants a relationship, is fine with being friends, but was pissed about the lying of it all just to keep them close. There's a world's difference between lying to get to your motives and being honest and accepting and hoping that something good comes your way.
I do not believe for a second that picture you're painting. In my experience, A is never a poor, innocent victim devoid of any flaw or fault. Granted, there might be a small statistical minority outlier, but everyone wants to believe that they're that minority. In practice, every friendzoned man I've ever met has been entirely responsible for their own misfortune.
