Ah the classic double standard. However, I don't think it really is possible to get out of the friendzone on your own volition. If they don't want to date, find a different person to put that effort into.
Well, I have been "friend zoned"(in other words: accepted to be the friend even though I wanted more) by guys and I know a lot of other women who have been. I don't think you are thinking very widely. You just think about memes and guys whining on the Internet about getting friend zoned, when they really did it themselves. The friend zone is really about ourselves accepting to be there and not do anything about it. You put yourself into it.
@whyisitso "accepted to be the friend even though I wanted more" That's not friendzoning. That's just being seen as a friend. Them not being attracted to you is not the same as the friendzoning. It has something to do with the guys behaviour, but the phenomenon occurs within women. So it involves men behaving in the ways necessary to avoid this thing that girls do. There isn't really an equivalent for guys, you're either just attractive or you're not. There's not really any wrestling with what social roles he sees the girl as in his life.
@RolandCuthbert I haven't seen the movie, but AT least from that clip she wasn't friendzoned. Also, being a movie, I don't think it would be a good example of reality even if it wass friendzoning that was depicted in the movie.
@crazy8000 What things are you talking about? Having girls that are friends doesn't mean they underwent friendzoning.
Of course it is friendzoning. The film is "Lucas". It is about a brilliant nerdy underdeveloped teenager infatuated with a beautiful high school cheerleader. And throughout the movie, his infatuation for a girl who is not interested in him, blinds him to the obvious. That one of his best friends, played by Wynona Rider, is in love with him.
"Some kind of Wonderful" is a similar movie. Mary Stuart Masterson and Eric Stolz characters are the closest of friends. But she is in love with Eric and Eric is in love with Lea Thompson. Lea doesn't know Eric from a hole in the ground.
@RolandCuthbert Being blinded to (or just not interested in) someone is still not being friendzoned. They just aren't into you at that moment for whatever reason, be it they aren't attracted to you or they are focused on someone else. But neither of that means they experienced friendzoning.
That is actually the definition of friendzoning. Men put women into the friendzone. They rely upon them, they confide in them, some even know that the women are romantically attracted to them, but they don't do anything to end it. Because of the obvious benefits of having someone who would do almost anything for you, while you do almost nothing for them in return.
@RolandCuthbert Still not friendzoning. That's leading them on, that's taking advantage of them, keeping them on the hook, not friendzoning.
Friendzoning occurs when the person is potentially a suitor but through their behaviour interacting with the other person psychology, that other person assigns them the social role of "friend." So even if they later express interest the potential is already lost and they are only seen as a "friend." It's specific, it's not leading someone on, or just being their friend. It's them coming to perceive you as the friend and only the friend through specific conditions.
Of course it is. That's friendzoning. You stick a person in the zone. You know where she will be. And she will stay there seemingly forever. Just like the guys. You never let her get too close. You complain to her about the women you are dating and relationships that don't work out. All the while her heart is breaking. And you never once consider, "hey, why don't we give it a shot".
That's the friendzone. It would seem you have created a requirement to eliminate all women from consideration.
And that is in order to be in the friendzone, a woman has to change her sex and become a man. Because using your definition without gender considerations could not leave a person to believe this only happens to men.
@RolandCuthbert I haven't "created" a requirement -- and it doesn't technically exclude men, it just almost never occurs in men. It reflects reality.
Keeping someone on the hook is keeping someone on the hook, not friendzoning.
"And you never once consider, "hey, why don't we give it a shot"." To me that still sounds like you're excluding men from friendzoning. Since when do guys not consider giving it a shot with a girl that's their friend if they're single?
"Because using your definition without gender considerations could not leave a person to believe this only happens to men." It doesn't need to used gendered language to have a gendered outcome. Comparing scenarios with both combinations of gender and understanding the things we do about masculine brains it's apparent that friendzoning is heavily weighted toward occurring in female minds and men being the subject rather than the other way around.
No, it does not reflect reality. In fact, it stubbornly ignores reality. It is a narrative that men cling to, to keep that romanticized fantasy alive. The friend zone is a horrible place to be. But men and women who are in it, choose to live there. If you want more than friendship say that. If you can't then deal with just the friendship, just leave. Because it is obvious being a friend isn't enough and it is hurtful.
Dude, I have friendzoned women. Something obviously wrong here. You think because a woman does not tell you she wants to be with you, that you have not friend zoned her? You can pretend that you don't know if/when women are attracted to you. You will be alone in that assessment.
The vast majority of men in American society have had a woman be attracted to them at one time or another. And they noticed when they received that attention.
@RolandCuthbert "men and w̶o̶m̶e̶n who are in it, choose to live there." I don't exactly disagree. None of that paragraph conflicts with what I've said.
"I have friendzoned women." I think you've done something you call friendzoning but isn't actually friendzoning.
"You think because a woman does not tell you she wants to be with you, that you have not friend zoned her?" Doesn't matter what she says to me, I wouldn't be friendzoning her. At no point do I put a decent girl in the purely-platonic-friends-with-no-chance-of-anything-else box.
"You can pretend that you don't know if/when women are attracted to you" Any knowledge I have of her interest or lack there of isn't relevant.
"The vast majority of men in American society have had a woman be attracted to them at one time or another. And they noticed when they received that attention." Cool -- and that's irrelevant to friendzoning.
I am not going to get into what you personally do. Of course, men friendzone women. You just reject the millions of women who experience this based upon a technicality that does not apply.
As for your attempts to dismiss things as irrelevant. Let's recap.
1. Both sexes have receive affection, attention, etc. from the opposite sex.
2. Both sexes put some of those men/women into a zone where the only thing is possible is a platonic relationship. They are friends with no chance to be anything else. I have showed this with media images. I admit to doing it personally and I know dozens of men who have done the same.
3. Besides that, there literally hundreds of factually documented instances of friendzoning by men online. Most of these accounts are documented by the males themselves.
@RolandCuthbert "Both sexes put some of those men/women into a zone where the only thing is possible is a platonic relationship." Yes, but the point that distinguishes just seeing someone as a friend and being able to say they were friendzoned is how and why they ended up with that role.
"I admit to doing it personally and I know dozens of men who have done the same." I'm sure loads of guys have had girls who are intersted in them that the guys aren't interested in themselves. Cool, you made a friend, that doesn't mean they were friendzoned to get to that friend role.
"literally hundreds of factually documented instances of friendzoning by men online." I mean I haven't seen any that I recall. Hundreds is not many considered the scale of the internet. But okay, I'm sure there are some. I never said it was impossible I just see it as *highly* unusual.
Only one of those things in that article comes close to describing friendzoning ("The two of you have passed that point"). Mostly they describe reasons they aren't intersted in the girl -- reason that you don't engage with a girl romantically and why you only treat her as a friend. That is not friendzoning.
We already have words for all that stuff. Just saying the girl isn't attractive to them pretty much covers it. Since we already have words for everything else, it makes sense to use friendzoning for the specific phemonenon I'm describing, otherwise the concept just gets lost as we lose the words to isolate it and think about it. People just seem to lump it in with being friends, which is not appropriate. Being friends with someone (even if they're attracted to you) and friendzoning them are not the same thing.
I'd be far more open to an argument suggesting that women don't friendzone much either rather than saying that guys do it with any regularity.
Look I know you have this special definition you created to exclude women. That's cool. You just have to know that the outside world doesn't operate on your specialized definitions. I can post hundreds of accounts from men who have friendzoned women. That's just fact. You won't accept what they have stated. And you will create all kinds of exceptions and invent new rationalizations.
I get it.
I am not trying to convince you. You're determined to have your fantasy no matter what the objective reality is.
Yes, there are hundreds of accounts by men themselves who have friendzoned women. You say that is not that much. That is hilarious. How many people are going to take the time to blog or write about it?
Never mind. You will come up with some answer that does not comport with reality.
It is the very definition of friendzoning. You are just rationalizing trying to deny what obviously happens every single day. Men who meet women, and because women don't they don't have that "charisma" that sexy women have, they are not interested. But they are great at math. They are great sidekicks. Wingmen. I know a woman at one of my job sites that fits the bill. And there are at least two guys who have her in the friendzone. She is trying to forget about them and do her thing.
But it is so hard. There is one guy she thinks is gorgeous. But he will never see her as anything more than a friend.
That's the friend zone. And your specialized definitions do not take away her hurt and frustration.
But again, it is her choice to stay there. Just like it is yours or any other man's choice.
@RolandCuthbert That was the original definition and give that there is a identifiable phenomenon their with no other word, it makes all the sense to call it friendzoning.
I didn't create it, that's what it means, it doesn't necessarily exclude women, I never used gendered language, so it's curious you would think that it excludes women... It's almost like there's something between men and women that are not the same here. HMMMM
Plenty of people don't agree with you conception of friendzoning either. Even You've got your definition, I've got mine, but the way I'm proposing people should be using the language is more descriptive of all the finer details of these situations. Yours is too broad and vague and we already plenty of terms to cover all that stuff. All you use it for is to shit on guys who complain about it... when maybe many of those instances of guys complaining is actually reflective of a specific thing that largely effects men? But god forbid you should hear someone else's perspective.
"You're determined to have your fantasy no matter what the objective reality is." Is there an echo in here?
"How many people are going to take the time to blog or write about it?" Tons, welcome to the internet. Again, just because they're doing what you think friendzoning is that doesn't mean it's actually friendzoning. I could link you to every cat video on the internet and call it friendzoning and uh oh, checkmate.
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm using the name of a recognizable phenomenon. I'm not even saying the things you're talking about don't occur. They're just not called friendzoning, that's all.
"there are at least two guys who have her in the friendzone" But it couldn't be that they simply find her unattractive either physically or otherwise?
"There is one guy she thinks is gorgeous. But he will never see her as anything more than a friend." That's one-sided attraction. Why call it friendzoning when there's another identifiable thing that already uses friendzoning?
"And your specialized definitions do not take away her hurt and frustration." It's not the friendzone and the definition was never meant to take anything away. If that's what you though you were arguing against the whole time then maybe rethink things. It was meant to name observations of reality. A wider range of specific terms for specific things helps us thing about the world. It irks me when language is butchered and abstract conception becomes harder without the language to clearly identify unique things.
"Get out and never return." I would say yes, get out of the friendzone, but also get out of situations where your interest isn't reciprocated.
"Plenty of people don't agree with you conception of friendzoning either. Even You've got your definition,"
But I told you this already. You created this special unique definition for the purposes of excluding women. Like it almost never happens to them. When thousands upon thousands claim it happen everyday. And men readily admit to doing to women.
Anyone can search for the definition of friendzone. They can read the definition and see it happens in just as many situation where the sexes are reversed.
"Again, just because they're doing what you think friendzoning is that doesn't mean it's actually friendzoning,. . ."
Of It is friendzoning if it meet the definition. And I just checked. It does.
"But it couldn't be that they simply find her unattractive either physically or otherwise?"
And how would you determine that? And in what definition is there mutual attraction between two people. That actually sounds quite nuts. So your definition certainly is nothing like what is commonly accepted as being the "friendzone".
"it is better to observe the differences rather than create them." That's what I'm saying.
"thousands upon thousands claim it happen everyday" >Claim What they are talking about is when a guy isn't attracted to them or decides not to pursue anything further than friendship for any reason. It's a broad and erroneous use of friendzoning. Really it's the consequence of just the name and what it sounds like it just based on the words. It didn't spread through people communicating the definition. It spread through people just saying it and others hear the word for the first time, not know what it means and then use it thems, suddenly everyone's using it for a range of things that no one can exactly agree on. I looked up the definitions, it seems divided tbh. So yeah, people aren't in consensus.
"It is friendzoning if it meet the definition. And I just checked. It does." There's no consensus.
"And how would you determine that?" They can just tell you? It doesn't need to be determined by an outside observer to be real anyway.
"in what definition is there mutual attraction" *The* definition. Not necessarily outright mutual attraction. But you start in a place where if interest was expressed and flirting was done, moves where made and so on, things might have happened. But through not being assertive and forthright, they closed that window of of potential attraction. That's friendzoning.
If they found you unattractive from the get go, then you never had a chance and while you would be their friend you would not be considered as having been friendzoned in that case. In other words, you were a only ever a friend from the start; the "zoning" never happened.
So in context, I feel like there's not many instances where a guy looks at a girl and considers her "acceptable," but then later on would say no to her when she makes a move on him while he's single and open to a relationship.
With girls, more often there could have been a spark if he took more initiative and was more assertive, but he didn't and got assigned the "just friends" role. We know guys don't assign social roles to the people around them to the extent that women do. With guys it's a question of does he find her attractive or not (this could also include emotional or circumstantial reasons), if he finds her attractive and he's open to a relationship then he's going to say yes to her.
There's not many instances where he would say she's attractive but reject her because he "sees her only as a friend." You do see that more often in women: It's not that they reject you because they consider you unattractive (for any physical, emotional or circumstantial reason), it's that they think of you like a brother.
No, sir you took a gender neutral definition of friendzone and created a stipulation to exclude women from the experience. Yes, they "claim". You make claims too. But we verify claims based upon objective facts. Nah, the definition is pretty consistent. And while you can have your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. You can have your special definition. As long as you have recognize the world simply does not care about it.
Ah. . . now I see, you believe that women lead me on. Got it. Men do not do the same? They don't flirt and then realize they do not want something more? Not that I am saying that is friendzoning mind you. That's your own special stipulation.
As for what you claim women are doing, I think that is just something borne out of your imagination. It is simple projection. And it is actually kind of scary.
So you're sounding a little bit attack-y toward me here. I feel like I should clarify that I often use second and first person language to express my position. Just because I said "you" doesn't mean I'm targeting you specifically. It's not personal, it's the figurative "you."
"gender neutral definition of friendzone and created a stipulation to exclude women from the experience." I didn't create a stipulation, I took a gender neutral definition of friendzone and put it in context.
"But we verify claims based upon objective facts." Do we even disagree on the facts? It's a question of semantics and articulation of concepts.
"you are not entitled to your own facts." Again, I don't think we disagree on the facts other than how consistent the definition is. It's not really like our definitions conflict that much. It's more like yours encompasses mine since mine is more narrow. So we could both interpret others definitions as conforming to our conception of it. So no, it's not consistent and you're probably not going to figure it out just by referencing definitions you find online.
"You can have your special definition. As long as you have recognize the world simply does not care about it." Ditto much?
"you believe that women lead me on. Men do not do the same? They don't flirt and then realize they do not want something more?" Sure, men and women do those same things, but what does that have to do with it? Leading people on is leading people on. I don't think friendzoning and leading people on are necessarily mutually exclusive, but they're not the same either. So no, you're really missing the mark on what I think here and you're going off on a bit of a tangent that is outside of what I'm talking about, so you might want to reign it in.
"As for what you claim women are doing, I think that is just something borne out of your imagination. It is simple projection." It couldn't be projection because it would be the thing I'm *not* doing. Projection would be extending the way I feel about things to other people. What I'm saying is that here's people doing a thing I am not doing; it's alien to me. So no, it's axiomatically not projection. You could have picked way better things to try and take a jab at me with, projection was not a good choice...
Nope, you created that stipulation. And it appears for the expressed purposes of excluding women. Of course, we disagree. It is silly to claim women lead men on, without recognizing the reverse. So you recognize your definition is narrow?
As for what we are talking about, do you know? Because it appears you want to leave the term undefined and reject all other definitions that do not comport with your reality. I am just pointing out that simple fact. The world is not concerned about whatever fantasy you tell yourself.
And yes, you project. You are saying that women lead men on, that implies you know what their intentions are when they friendzone men. Millions of men have made the claim they thought a woman was attracted to them and they were wrong.
It should not be a big deal to admit you misread a woman's intentions. I have done it lots of times.
@RolandCuthbert "It is silly to claim women lead men on, without recognizing the reverse." I never said men don't lead women on. So why are you even talking about this?
"So you recognize your definition is narrow?" Yes, that's the point. Specificity as opposed to ambiguity.
"it appears you want to leave the term undefined and reject all other definitions that do not comport with your reality" Reality is reality. I want a detailed set of terms that accurately describe it that we all agree so we can think about and talk about the world. We alreadly have words for other definitions, so no, I'm not rejecting them, they're already named, e. g Leading someone on... since that's apparently a thing we're talking about. I'm trying to conceptually isolate and name a specific thing that otherwise has had no other name. When we lose the language to think about things we become stupider for it.
"The world is not concerned about whatever fantasy you tell yourself." There's that echo again.
"You are saying that women lead men on, that implies you know what their intentions are when they friendzone men." Didn't I just literally say that are different things? I always acknowledged that people can lead other people on. I also acknowledged that it's different to friendzoning, but that it's possible they may occur at the same time... or they may not. Leading people on is a whole different thing that isn't all that relevant to what I'm talking about, so why do you feel the need to bring it up?
"Millions of men have made the claim they thought a woman was attracted to them and they were wrong." Yes, I know, cool. What does this have to do with anything? I never contested that at all. Are we just saying random things? Millions of cats thought that a cucumber was a threat and were wrong. Saying random things, yay.
"It should not be a big deal to admit you misread a woman's intentions." It's not... and continues to have very little to do with any of this.
Oh, I didn't say specific. I said exclusive. You created a definition to exclude women from the experience. And you provide no detailed set of terms or definitions. You leave things vague on purpose and simply reject different experiences based upon a definition that only you know and use.
You keep talking about definitions. Words are defined in the dictionary. They are defined based upon how people use the word. And if most people use a term in a way you do not, well. . . it isn't like you have been very observant of reality up to now.
"A word gets into a dictionary when it is used by many people who all agree that it means the same thing. ... First, you drop the word into your conversation and writing, then others pick it up; the more its use spreads, the more likely it will be noticed by dictionary editors, or lexicographers."
@RolandCuthbert And I said specific. The definition doesn't exclude women from it.
I did provide details already, but I'll try to bullet point it for you. -Potential interest -Not acted upon -Assigned social role -Role kills potential interest
"You leave things vague on purpose and simply reject different experiences based upon a definition that only you know and use." I think I'm being very specific. What happened to agreeing I was being narrow? I don't think I've rejected an experience yet. I haven't contested that any other experience exists. So...
"And if most people use a term in a way you do not," You presume that people use it in a way that agrees with you. People use the same words for different things all the time and manage to talk past each other, nodding along, not realizing they were talking about different things. Besides, even if a term was unpopular that doesn't mean it's not more apt. It it makes more sense then it's appropriate to use it and spread it's usage. New words spring up all the time, so do old ones. Depending on the term it's also entirely possible that *most* people are observing reality wrong and that would hardly be new. Trending does not make truth. Finally, I'm entirely open to adapting my language for the sake of effective communication. When you provide a set of accepted terms that more accurately and precisely describe the world then we'll use those. But my proposition has been more practical and describes reality with a better resolution.
So lets try this: Lets try to accurately represent each other's positions.
I think that your use of the term friendzone is basically unrequited love or unreciprocated interest -- and your recommendation is to not stick around and get out of that. How'd I do?
I know what you said. I am telling you, your definition is exclusive. It excludes women. You even said it excludes women.
Wow.
You are just playing the semantics game. You never "defined" friendzoning up until the last post. And you simply rejected other experiences based upon a definition that only you use. And again words are defined by usage. You know that most people do not define "friendzone" the way you do.
It isn't like this is a debate.
My definition comes from how most people define the friendzone.
In popular culture, the friend zone is a situation in which one member of a friendship wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not. It is generally considered to be an undesirable situation for the rejected person.
@RolandCuthbert The definition doesn't exclude women. Read closer. The language was entirely gender neutral. What you're referring to was my hypothesized outcome if the definition was applied to reality. And I'll try to state it for you again: *At the very least,* you'll be more women friendzoning than men.
" You never "defined" friendzoning up until the last post" Actually that was the second time -- and if you're going to play that game then where did you formally state it?
" rejected other experiences" Literally rejected no experiences. If you scroll back up I doubt you'll find anything other than me contesting the semantics. The only thing that even relates to experiences that I would contest is frequency.
"only you use" Lets so for arguements sake that's true, it still wouldn't undermine the semantic merits of the set of terms I'm using.
"You know that most people do not define "friendzone" the way you do." Ditto, most people don't agree with each other, there's no consensus.
"My definition comes from how most people define the friendzone." And have you spoken to most people? Did you get it in writing? Even if you somehow did, I can still put this forth as a superior way of conceptualizing the situation.
"The friend zone is a situation in which one member of a friendship wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not." Okay, so I represented your position fairly accurately, yes? Basically that's the long way of saying unrequited love or interest, yes?
So are you going to try to represent my argument to confirm we're on the same page?
Of course it does and I have read. Mayhap you should read your own posts closer. You said women do not get friendzoned in one of your first posts. Ooops.
So your claims about gender neutral definitions is just crap.
And of course you rejected experiences submitted to you time and again. If there is consensus there would be no definition. You created your own and now you are questioning everyone else who has worked with a different definition for literally decades.
You can do anything you wish. But your specialized exclusive definition is not recognized by most people. Not many folks think men don't friendzone women as often as women friendzone men.
And that is a clear representation of the debate. You think women are capable of some negative behavior that most men are not.
" You created your own and now you are questioning everyone else who has worked with a different definition for literally decades." I didn't create my own. The first time I heard it was on Friends and then I heard it discussed for a long time in that way. I've only every parroted how I've heard it discussed in analysis, I never altered the definition as I've heard it. Only as it's become more prevalent have I see it used in other ways -- and it really seems like it's people just using the word in the way it sounds rather than anyone every having explained any nuance to them. I'd be with everyone using friendzone for other stuff, but then there's a space for another definition for the specific circumstance I'm talking about. Off the top of my head I'd call it something like boxxing, but that sounds too much like the sport so, I don't know. You need good terms.
"Not many folks think men don't friendzone women as often as women friendzone men." Do they? I would love to see those poll results.
"You think women are capable of some negative behavior that most men are not." Nope. Did I say it was a negative behaviour? Or is that just what you really wanted to hear from me? Did I even one singular time say anything negative about it? I don't think so. It just is what it is and all I'm doing is describing it.
Since you didn't seem to contest my assessment of your position I'm going to assume I was right. So the thing is, if it's synonymous with unrequited love or unreciprocated interest, why not use those terms to unambiguously describe it? If we've already got the language to describe it more accurately than making up a new word for it, then it seems silly to be so adamant about using the more vague term "friendzone" for it. Furthermore, it ignores nuance of the specific situation I outlined. Understanding that situation among other possibilities will help people get out of the friendzone and navigate relationships. Even if I accepted that everyone agreed on your interpretation, there's still a perfectly valid argument to say that it's retarded language that can be challenged.
So on every front I don't see why anyone should concede to any of this stuff you think -- particularly since you can't even represent my position accurately. If you don't even get where I'm coming from then you have no chance of coming to resolution.
I don't think you watched "Friends" too closely. In fact, Ross is the butt of the joke. And now I have to listen to a rant about what people mean and how they use words. Just like they don't know what they believe. A few people use definitions that are cruel to either sex. It is like people have it out for the other sex because of a bad experience with love. But the best definitions do not worry about the sex of the person being friendzoned.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that women "choose" the men they date and men somehow convince the woman they are seeking to like them back.
Create a poll. Because GaG is a screwy place. It really depends on the way you word the question. Maybe if you pretend the friendzone victimizes men or is apart of a feminist conspiracy, you might get more votes.
But out in the real world, things function far differently.
You surely do not see friendzoning as a positive thing. I don't know why you would pretend otherwise.
So in summation, since you made a few assumptions about you, let me make some in return. I defined friendzone. You didn't accept my definition which just comes from popular culture. Your specific definition does not appear in writing anywhere else. It certainly does not reflect the Ross/Rachel relationship in "Friends". It is your own special definition where women do this far too often and it is negative thing. Your methodology for fighting against the friendzone is to somehow guilt women out of this supposed behavior.
The fact is that the friendzone is all about the person who is in it.
And the only reason I can imagine is because you have been in it a lot over your lifetime.
To that, I can only way your low self-esteem is not attractive. That is not the fault of the women you are attracted too.
Fix the problem, do what you must to overcome obstacles to happiness.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
30Opinion
LEARNING ABOUT THE FRIENDZONE FROM A GIRL IS LIKE EATING POISON.
Ah the classic double standard. However, I don't think it really is possible to get out of the friendzone on your own volition. If they don't want to date, find a different person to put that effort into.
Double standard?
been here so long, even the dust bunnies know me
Oh, is this your comfort zone?
no.. the friend-zone I been in so long the dust bunnies know me by name
I meant that the friend zone is your comfort zone
You put yourself there, the end!!!
Funny how women won’t do anything but aren’t “cowards”
So you think this is directed only towards guys? I thought also girls can be in the "friend zone"
Girls don't really get friendzoned. I wouldln't say it could never happen just because anything is possible, but it's not really a "thing."
Guys might not be interested in a girl, but that's not the same as the phenomenon we see in girls that is friendzoning.
Well, I have been "friend zoned"(in other words: accepted to be the friend even though I wanted more) by guys and I know a lot of other women who have been. I don't think you are thinking very widely. You just think about memes and guys whining on the Internet about getting friend zoned, when they really did it themselves. The friend zone is really about ourselves accepting to be there and not do anything about it. You put yourself into it.
You can't friendzone a woman?
Silly man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3A2mb5z4qA
Are you really sure girl's can't be friendzoned 😁
I tend to friendzone girl's, they stick around just like guy's do and do the same thing's 😉
@whyisitso "accepted to be the friend even though I wanted more"
That's not friendzoning. That's just being seen as a friend. Them not being attracted to you is not the same as the friendzoning. It has something to do with the guys behaviour, but the phenomenon occurs within women. So it involves men behaving in the ways necessary to avoid this thing that girls do.
There isn't really an equivalent for guys, you're either just attractive or you're not. There's not really any wrestling with what social roles he sees the girl as in his life.
@RolandCuthbert I haven't seen the movie, but AT least from that clip she wasn't friendzoned. Also, being a movie, I don't think it would be a good example of reality even if it wass friendzoning that was depicted in the movie.
@crazy8000 What things are you talking about? Having girls that are friends doesn't mean they underwent friendzoning.
Of course it is friendzoning. The film is "Lucas". It is about a brilliant nerdy underdeveloped teenager infatuated with a beautiful high school cheerleader. And throughout the movie, his infatuation for a girl who is not interested in him, blinds him to the obvious. That one of his best friends, played by Wynona Rider, is in love with him.
"Some kind of Wonderful" is a similar movie. Mary Stuart Masterson and Eric Stolz characters are the closest of friends. But she is in love with Eric and Eric is in love with Lea Thompson. Lea doesn't know Eric from a hole in the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNmP7z1Eemo
Sorry, these were the flicks I was watching during my high school years.
@RolandCuthbert Being blinded to (or just not interested in) someone is still not being friendzoned. They just aren't into you at that moment for whatever reason, be it they aren't attracted to you or they are focused on someone else. But neither of that means they experienced friendzoning.
That is actually the definition of friendzoning. Men put women into the friendzone. They rely upon them, they confide in them, some even know that the women are romantically attracted to them, but they don't do anything to end it. Because of the obvious benefits of having someone who would do almost anything for you, while you do almost nothing for them in return.
@RolandCuthbert Still not friendzoning. That's leading them on, that's taking advantage of them, keeping them on the hook, not friendzoning.
Friendzoning occurs when the person is potentially a suitor but through their behaviour interacting with the other person psychology, that other person assigns them the social role of "friend." So even if they later express interest the potential is already lost and they are only seen as a "friend." It's specific, it's not leading someone on, or just being their friend. It's them coming to perceive you as the friend and only the friend through specific conditions.
Of course it is. That's friendzoning. You stick a person in the zone. You know where she will be. And she will stay there seemingly forever. Just like the guys. You never let her get too close. You complain to her about the women you are dating and relationships that don't work out. All the while her heart is breaking. And you never once consider, "hey, why don't we give it a shot".
That's the friendzone. It would seem you have created a requirement to eliminate all women from consideration.
And that is in order to be in the friendzone, a woman has to change her sex and become a man. Because using your definition without gender considerations could not leave a person to believe this only happens to men.
@RolandCuthbert I haven't "created" a requirement -- and it doesn't technically exclude men, it just almost never occurs in men. It reflects reality.
Keeping someone on the hook is keeping someone on the hook, not friendzoning.
"And you never once consider, "hey, why don't we give it a shot"."
To me that still sounds like you're excluding men from friendzoning.
Since when do guys not consider giving it a shot with a girl that's their friend if they're single?
"Because using your definition without gender considerations could not leave a person to believe this only happens to men."
It doesn't need to used gendered language to have a gendered outcome. Comparing scenarios with both combinations of gender and understanding the things we do about masculine brains it's apparent that friendzoning is heavily weighted toward occurring in female minds and men being the subject rather than the other way around.
No, it does not reflect reality. In fact, it stubbornly ignores reality. It is a narrative that men cling to, to keep that romanticized fantasy alive. The friend zone is a horrible place to be. But men and women who are in it, choose to live there. If you want more than friendship say that. If you can't then deal with just the friendship, just leave. Because it is obvious being a friend isn't enough and it is hurtful.
Dude, I have friendzoned women. Something obviously wrong here. You think because a woman does not tell you she wants to be with you, that you have not friend zoned her? You can pretend that you don't know if/when women are attracted to you. You will be alone in that assessment.
The vast majority of men in American society have had a woman be attracted to them at one time or another. And they noticed when they received that attention.
Your analysis simply does not comport to reality.
@RolandCuthbert "men and w̶o̶m̶e̶n who are in it, choose to live there."
I don't exactly disagree. None of that paragraph conflicts with what I've said.
"I have friendzoned women."
I think you've done something you call friendzoning but isn't actually friendzoning.
"You think because a woman does not tell you she wants to be with you, that you have not friend zoned her?"
Doesn't matter what she says to me, I wouldn't be friendzoning her. At no point do I put a decent girl in the purely-platonic-friends-with-no-chance-of-anything-else box.
"You can pretend that you don't know if/when women are attracted to you"
Any knowledge I have of her interest or lack there of isn't relevant.
"The vast majority of men in American society have had a woman be attracted to them at one time or another. And they noticed when they received that attention."
Cool -- and that's irrelevant to friendzoning.
I am not going to get into what you personally do. Of course, men friendzone women. You just reject the millions of women who experience this based upon a technicality that does not apply.
As for your attempts to dismiss things as irrelevant. Let's recap.
1. Both sexes have receive affection, attention, etc. from the opposite sex.
2. Both sexes put some of those men/women into a zone where the only thing is possible is a platonic relationship. They are friends with no chance to be anything else. I have showed this with media images. I admit to doing it personally and I know dozens of men who have done the same.
3. Besides that, there literally hundreds of factually documented instances of friendzoning by men online. Most of these accounts are documented by the males themselves.
newscult.com/.../
So if the accounts of men who have done this are not relevant, then exactly what is? Only the information supporting your point?
@RolandCuthbert "Both sexes put some of those men/women into a zone where the only thing is possible is a platonic relationship."
Yes, but the point that distinguishes just seeing someone as a friend and being able to say they were friendzoned is how and why they ended up with that role.
"I admit to doing it personally and I know dozens of men who have done the same."
I'm sure loads of guys have had girls who are intersted in them that the guys aren't interested in themselves. Cool, you made a friend, that doesn't mean they were friendzoned to get to that friend role.
"literally hundreds of factually documented instances of friendzoning by men online."
I mean I haven't seen any that I recall.
Hundreds is not many considered the scale of the internet.
But okay, I'm sure there are some. I never said it was impossible I just see it as *highly* unusual.
Only one of those things in that article comes close to describing friendzoning ("The two of you have passed that point"). Mostly they describe reasons they aren't intersted in the girl -- reason that you don't engage with a girl romantically and why you only treat her as a friend. That is not friendzoning.
We already have words for all that stuff. Just saying the girl isn't attractive to them pretty much covers it. Since we already have words for everything else, it makes sense to use friendzoning for the specific phemonenon I'm describing, otherwise the concept just gets lost as we lose the words to isolate it and think about it. People just seem to lump it in with being friends, which is not appropriate. Being friends with someone (even if they're attracted to you) and friendzoning them are not the same thing.
I'd be far more open to an argument suggesting that women don't friendzone much either rather than saying that guys do it with any regularity.
Look I know you have this special definition you created to exclude women. That's cool. You just have to know that the outside world doesn't operate on your specialized definitions. I can post hundreds of accounts from men who have friendzoned women. That's just fact. You won't accept what they have stated. And you will create all kinds of exceptions and invent new rationalizations.
I get it.
I am not trying to convince you. You're determined to have your fantasy no matter what the objective reality is.
Yes, there are hundreds of accounts by men themselves who have friendzoned women. You say that is not that much. That is hilarious. How many people are going to take the time to blog or write about it?
Never mind. You will come up with some answer that does not comport with reality.
It is the very definition of friendzoning. You are just rationalizing trying to deny what obviously happens every single day. Men who meet women, and because women don't they don't have that "charisma" that sexy women have, they are not interested. But they are great at math. They are great sidekicks. Wingmen. I know a woman at one of my job sites that fits the bill. And there are at least two guys who have her in the friendzone. She is trying to forget about them and do her thing.
But it is so hard. There is one guy she thinks is gorgeous. But he will never see her as anything more than a friend.
That's the friend zone. And your specialized definitions do not take away her hurt and frustration.
But again, it is her choice to stay there. Just like it is yours or any other man's choice.
Get out and never return.
@RolandCuthbert That was the original definition and give that there is a identifiable phenomenon their with no other word, it makes all the sense to call it friendzoning.
I didn't create it, that's what it means, it doesn't necessarily exclude women, I never used gendered language, so it's curious you would think that it excludes women... It's almost like there's something between men and women that are not the same here. HMMMM
Plenty of people don't agree with you conception of friendzoning either. Even You've got your definition, I've got mine, but the way I'm proposing people should be using the language is more descriptive of all the finer details of these situations. Yours is too broad and vague and we already plenty of terms to cover all that stuff. All you use it for is to shit on guys who complain about it... when maybe many of those instances of guys complaining is actually reflective of a specific thing that largely effects men? But god forbid you should hear someone else's perspective.
"You're determined to have your fantasy no matter what the objective reality is."
Is there an echo in here?
"How many people are going to take the time to blog or write about it?"
Tons, welcome to the internet.
Again, just because they're doing what you think friendzoning is that doesn't mean it's actually friendzoning. I could link you to every cat video on the internet and call it friendzoning and uh oh, checkmate.
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm using the name of a recognizable phenomenon. I'm not even saying the things you're talking about don't occur. They're just not called friendzoning, that's all.
"there are at least two guys who have her in the friendzone"
But it couldn't be that they simply find her unattractive either physically or otherwise?
"There is one guy she thinks is gorgeous. But he will never see her as anything more than a friend."
That's one-sided attraction. Why call it friendzoning when there's another identifiable thing that already uses friendzoning?
"And your specialized definitions do not take away her hurt and frustration."
It's not the friendzone and the definition was never meant to take anything away. If that's what you though you were arguing against the whole time then maybe rethink things. It was meant to name observations of reality. A wider range of specific terms for specific things helps us thing about the world. It irks me when language is butchered and abstract conception becomes harder without the language to clearly identify unique things.
"Get out and never return."
I would say yes, get out of the friendzone, but also get out of situations where your interest isn't reciprocated.
" It's almost like there's something between men and women that are not the same here."
I didn't say men and women were the same. I just think it is better to observe the differences rather than create them.
What Are Masculine Traits? ↗
"Plenty of people don't agree with you conception of friendzoning either. Even You've got your definition,"
But I told you this already. You created this special unique definition for the purposes of excluding women. Like it almost never happens to them. When thousands upon thousands claim it happen everyday. And men readily admit to doing to women.
Anyone can search for the definition of friendzone. They can read the definition and see it happens in just as many situation where the sexes are reversed.
"Again, just because they're doing what you think friendzoning is that doesn't mean it's actually friendzoning,. . ."
Of It is friendzoning if it meet the definition. And I just checked. It does.
"But it couldn't be that they simply find her unattractive either physically or otherwise?"
And how would you determine that? And in what definition is there mutual attraction between two people. That actually sounds quite nuts. So your definition certainly is nothing like what is commonly accepted as being the "friendzone".
"it is better to observe the differences rather than create them."
That's what I'm saying.
"thousands upon thousands claim it happen everyday"
>Claim
What they are talking about is when a guy isn't attracted to them or decides not to pursue anything further than friendship for any reason. It's a broad and erroneous use of friendzoning. Really it's the consequence of just the name and what it sounds like it just based on the words. It didn't spread through people communicating the definition. It spread through people just saying it and others hear the word for the first time, not know what it means and then use it thems, suddenly everyone's using it for a range of things that no one can exactly agree on.
I looked up the definitions, it seems divided tbh. So yeah, people aren't in consensus.
"It is friendzoning if it meet the definition. And I just checked. It does."
There's no consensus.
"And how would you determine that?"
They can just tell you?
It doesn't need to be determined by an outside observer to be real anyway.
"in what definition is there mutual attraction"
*The* definition.
Not necessarily outright mutual attraction. But you start in a place where if interest was expressed and flirting was done, moves where made and so on, things might have happened. But through not being assertive and forthright, they closed that window of of potential attraction. That's friendzoning.
If they found you unattractive from the get go, then you never had a chance and while you would be their friend you would not be considered as having been friendzoned in that case. In other words, you were a only ever a friend from the start; the "zoning" never happened.
So in context, I feel like there's not many instances where a guy looks at a girl and considers her "acceptable," but then later on would say no to her when she makes a move on him while he's single and open to a relationship.
With girls, more often there could have been a spark if he took more initiative and was more assertive, but he didn't and got assigned the "just friends" role. We know guys don't assign social roles to the people around them to the extent that women do. With guys it's a question of does he find her attractive or not (this could also include emotional or circumstantial reasons), if he finds her attractive and he's open to a relationship then he's going to say yes to her.
There's not many instances where he would say she's attractive but reject her because he "sees her only as a friend." You do see that more often in women: It's not that they reject you because they consider you unattractive (for any physical, emotional or circumstantial reason), it's that they think of you like a brother.
No, sir you took a gender neutral definition of friendzone and created a stipulation to exclude women from the experience. Yes, they "claim". You make claims too. But we verify claims based upon objective facts. Nah, the definition is pretty consistent. And while you can have your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. You can have your special definition. As long as you have recognize the world simply does not care about it.
Ah. . . now I see, you believe that women lead me on. Got it. Men do not do the same? They don't flirt and then realize they do not want something more? Not that I am saying that is friendzoning mind you. That's your own special stipulation.
As for what you claim women are doing, I think that is just something borne out of your imagination. It is simple projection. And it is actually kind of scary.
So you're sounding a little bit attack-y toward me here. I feel like I should clarify that I often use second and first person language to express my position. Just because I said "you" doesn't mean I'm targeting you specifically. It's not personal, it's the figurative "you."
"gender neutral definition of friendzone and created a stipulation to exclude women from the experience."
I didn't create a stipulation, I took a gender neutral definition of friendzone and put it in context.
"But we verify claims based upon objective facts."
Do we even disagree on the facts? It's a question of semantics and articulation of concepts.
"you are not entitled to your own facts."
Again, I don't think we disagree on the facts other than how consistent the definition is. It's not really like our definitions conflict that much. It's more like yours encompasses mine since mine is more narrow. So we could both interpret others definitions as conforming to our conception of it. So no, it's not consistent and you're probably not going to figure it out just by referencing definitions you find online.
"You can have your special definition. As long as you have recognize the world simply does not care about it."
Ditto much?
"you believe that women lead me on. Men do not do the same? They don't flirt and then realize they do not want something more?"
Sure, men and women do those same things, but what does that have to do with it? Leading people on is leading people on. I don't think friendzoning and leading people on are necessarily mutually exclusive, but they're not the same either.
So no, you're really missing the mark on what I think here and you're going off on a bit of a tangent that is outside of what I'm talking about, so you might want to reign it in.
"As for what you claim women are doing, I think that is just something borne out of your imagination. It is simple projection."
It couldn't be projection because it would be the thing I'm *not* doing. Projection would be extending the way I feel about things to other people. What I'm saying is that here's people doing a thing I am not doing; it's alien to me. So no, it's axiomatically not projection. You could have picked way better things to try and take a jab at me with, projection was not a good choice...
Nope, you created that stipulation. And it appears for the expressed purposes of excluding women. Of course, we disagree. It is silly to claim women lead men on, without recognizing the reverse. So you recognize your definition is narrow?
As for what we are talking about, do you know? Because it appears you want to leave the term undefined and reject all other definitions that do not comport with your reality. I am just pointing out that simple fact. The world is not concerned about whatever fantasy you tell yourself.
And yes, you project. You are saying that women lead men on, that implies you know what their intentions are when they friendzone men. Millions of men have made the claim they thought a woman was attracted to them and they were wrong.
It should not be a big deal to admit you misread a woman's intentions. I have done it lots of times.
@RolandCuthbert "It is silly to claim women lead men on, without recognizing the reverse."
I never said men don't lead women on. So why are you even talking about this?
"So you recognize your definition is narrow?"
Yes, that's the point. Specificity as opposed to ambiguity.
"it appears you want to leave the term undefined and reject all other definitions that do not comport with your reality"
Reality is reality. I want a detailed set of terms that accurately describe it that we all agree so we can think about and talk about the world. We alreadly have words for other definitions, so no, I'm not rejecting them, they're already named, e. g Leading someone on... since that's apparently a thing we're talking about. I'm trying to conceptually isolate and name a specific thing that otherwise has had no other name. When we lose the language to think about things we become stupider for it.
"The world is not concerned about whatever fantasy you tell yourself."
There's that echo again.
"You are saying that women lead men on, that implies you know what their intentions are when they friendzone men."
Didn't I just literally say that are different things?
I always acknowledged that people can lead other people on.
I also acknowledged that it's different to friendzoning, but that it's possible they may occur at the same time... or they may not.
Leading people on is a whole different thing that isn't all that relevant to what I'm talking about, so why do you feel the need to bring it up?
"Millions of men have made the claim they thought a woman was attracted to them and they were wrong."
Yes, I know, cool. What does this have to do with anything? I never contested that at all. Are we just saying random things?
Millions of cats thought that a cucumber was a threat and were wrong. Saying random things, yay.
"It should not be a big deal to admit you misread a woman's intentions."
It's not... and continues to have very little to do with any of this.
Oh, I didn't say specific. I said exclusive. You created a definition to exclude women from the experience. And you provide no detailed set of terms or definitions. You leave things vague on purpose and simply reject different experiences based upon a definition that only you know and use.
You keep talking about definitions. Words are defined in the dictionary. They are defined based upon how people use the word. And if most people use a term in a way you do not, well. . . it isn't like you have been very observant of reality up to now.
"A word gets into a dictionary when it is used by many people who all agree that it means the same thing. ... First, you drop the word into your conversation and writing, then others pick it up; the more its use spreads, the more likely it will be noticed by dictionary editors, or lexicographers."
@RolandCuthbert And I said specific.
The definition doesn't exclude women from it.
I did provide details already, but I'll try to bullet point it for you.
-Potential interest
-Not acted upon
-Assigned social role
-Role kills potential interest
"You leave things vague on purpose and simply reject different experiences based upon a definition that only you know and use."
I think I'm being very specific. What happened to agreeing I was being narrow?
I don't think I've rejected an experience yet. I haven't contested that any other experience exists. So...
"And if most people use a term in a way you do not,"
You presume that people use it in a way that agrees with you. People use the same words for different things all the time and manage to talk past each other, nodding along, not realizing they were talking about different things.
Besides, even if a term was unpopular that doesn't mean it's not more apt. It it makes more sense then it's appropriate to use it and spread it's usage. New words spring up all the time, so do old ones. Depending on the term it's also entirely possible that *most* people are observing reality wrong and that would hardly be new. Trending does not make truth. Finally, I'm entirely open to adapting my language for the sake of effective communication. When you provide a set of accepted terms that more accurately and precisely describe the world then we'll use those. But my proposition has been more practical and describes reality with a better resolution.
So lets try this:
Lets try to accurately represent each other's positions.
I think that your use of the term friendzone is basically unrequited love or unreciprocated interest -- and your recommendation is to not stick around and get out of that. How'd I do?
I know what you said. I am telling you, your definition is exclusive. It excludes women. You even said it excludes women.
Wow.
You are just playing the semantics game. You never "defined" friendzoning up until the last post. And you simply rejected other experiences based upon a definition that only you use. And again words are defined by usage. You know that most people do not define "friendzone" the way you do.
It isn't like this is a debate.
My definition comes from how most people define the friendzone.
In popular culture, the friend zone is a situation in which one member of a friendship wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not. It is generally considered to be an undesirable situation for the rejected person.
@RolandCuthbert The definition doesn't exclude women. Read closer.
The language was entirely gender neutral.
What you're referring to was my hypothesized outcome if the definition was applied to reality. And I'll try to state it for you again: *At the very least,* you'll be more women friendzoning than men.
" You never "defined" friendzoning up until the last post"
Actually that was the second time -- and if you're going to play that game then where did you formally state it?
" rejected other experiences"
Literally rejected no experiences.
If you scroll back up I doubt you'll find anything other than me contesting the semantics. The only thing that even relates to experiences that I would contest is frequency.
"only you use"
Lets so for arguements sake that's true, it still wouldn't undermine the semantic merits of the set of terms I'm using.
"You know that most people do not define "friendzone" the way you do."
Ditto, most people don't agree with each other, there's no consensus.
"My definition comes from how most people define the friendzone."
And have you spoken to most people? Did you get it in writing?
Even if you somehow did, I can still put this forth as a superior way of conceptualizing the situation.
"The friend zone is a situation in which one member of a friendship wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not."
Okay, so I represented your position fairly accurately, yes?
Basically that's the long way of saying unrequited love or interest, yes?
So are you going to try to represent my argument to confirm we're on the same page?
Of course it does and I have read. Mayhap you should read your own posts closer. You said women do not get friendzoned in one of your first posts. Ooops.
So your claims about gender neutral definitions is just crap.
And of course you rejected experiences submitted to you time and again. If there is consensus there would be no definition. You created your own and now you are questioning everyone else who has worked with a different definition for literally decades.
You can do anything you wish. But your specialized exclusive definition is not recognized by most people. Not many folks think men don't friendzone women as often as women friendzone men.
And that is a clear representation of the debate. You think women are capable of some negative behavior that most men are not.
@RolandCuthbert
Saying "women do not get friendzoned" was not part of a definition.
So... no u.
"your claims about gender neutral definitions"
See above.
"If there is consensus there would be no definition"
I think that goes against the definition of definition.
" You created your own and now you are questioning everyone else who has worked with a different definition for literally decades."
I didn't create my own. The first time I heard it was on Friends and then I heard it discussed for a long time in that way. I've only every parroted how I've heard it discussed in analysis, I never altered the definition as I've heard it. Only as it's become more prevalent have I see it used in other ways -- and it really seems like it's people just using the word in the way it sounds rather than anyone every having explained any nuance to them. I'd be with everyone using friendzone for other stuff, but then there's a space for another definition for the specific circumstance I'm talking about. Off the top of my head I'd call it something like boxxing, but that sounds too much like the sport so, I don't know. You need good terms.
"Not many folks think men don't friendzone women as often as women friendzone men."
Do they? I would love to see those poll results.
"You think women are capable of some negative behavior that most men are not."
Nope. Did I say it was a negative behaviour? Or is that just what you really wanted to hear from me? Did I even one singular time say anything negative about it? I don't think so. It just is what it is and all I'm doing is describing it.
Since you didn't seem to contest my assessment of your position I'm going to assume I was right. So the thing is, if it's synonymous with unrequited love or unreciprocated interest, why not use those terms to unambiguously describe it? If we've already got the language to describe it more accurately than making up a new word for it, then it seems silly to be so adamant about using the more vague term "friendzone" for it. Furthermore, it ignores nuance of the specific situation I outlined. Understanding that situation among other possibilities will help people get out of the friendzone and navigate relationships. Even if I accepted that everyone agreed on your interpretation, there's still a perfectly valid argument to say that it's retarded language that can be challenged.
So on every front I don't see why anyone should concede to any of this stuff you think -- particularly since you can't even represent my position accurately. If you don't even get where I'm coming from then you have no chance of coming to resolution.
Peace.
I don't think you watched "Friends" too closely. In fact, Ross is the butt of the joke. And now I have to listen to a rant about what people mean and how they use words. Just like they don't know what they believe. A few people use definitions that are cruel to either sex. It is like people have it out for the other sex because of a bad experience with love. But the best definitions do not worry about the sex of the person being friendzoned.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that women "choose" the men they date and men somehow convince the woman they are seeking to like them back.
Create a poll. Because GaG is a screwy place. It really depends on the way you word the question. Maybe if you pretend the friendzone victimizes men or is apart of a feminist conspiracy, you might get more votes.
But out in the real world, things function far differently.
You surely do not see friendzoning as a positive thing. I don't know why you would pretend otherwise.
So in summation, since you made a few assumptions about you, let me make some in return. I defined friendzone. You didn't accept my definition which just comes from popular culture. Your specific definition does not appear in writing anywhere else. It certainly does not reflect the Ross/Rachel relationship in "Friends". It is your own special definition where women do this far too often and it is negative thing. Your methodology for fighting against the friendzone is to somehow guilt women out of this supposed behavior.
The fact is that the friendzone is all about the person who is in it.
And the only reason I can imagine is because you have been in it a lot over your lifetime.
To that, I can only way your low self-esteem is not attractive. That is not the fault of the women you are attracted too.
Fix the problem, do what you must to overcome obstacles to happiness.
It is that simple.
Refuse the friend zone, NO FUCKING THANK YOU !
Thank you for sharing this.
Interesting.
So what do you suggest?
Good take
Interesting.
Yeah Turkish subtitles😊
great take