The dreaded Friend Zone lol

[Jupiter Drops]

^

 

[redblue22]

We live in a pretty shallow world if affections are based on the eyes and representations of status. It is all about me and what I can get--right? That is how to be happy, right? And some of you just might be right about a lot of people. It might be darker than that. When you don't choose your affections, and your affections choose you, then you also leave it up to a lot of unconscious life experiences. Because of life experiences I am uncomfortable with my healthy best friend--and choose something less healthy and not good. Many find that they are naturally attracted to what they cannot have. That in itself would be a large explaination as to why close friends are turned down by those who are ruled by unchosen natural affections. And if you get someone by appealing to their shallowness or weakness or selfishness--then you get the kind of person who is gotten that way. So, go ahead and play a game and get the fancy clothes, looks, car, job. Wear a mask--your whole life. Because that is the intimacy you want, right?

Friendzones happen for a lot of reasons. But it appears to be like two people become intimate and bond. Then one wants to confirm that intimacy he or she is now committed to and depends on and enjoys, but the other denies any future promise or increase or action--although accepts the current level of connection. The person who feels overly attached now has trouble letting go. Evil or good motives aside--on both sides--that is what it looks like.

From there, it is quite easy to see how a "friends with benefits" might happen where a man or woman takes advantage of the intimacy--without commitment or investment. It is getting the best of both worlds scenario. Friends with benefits usually means getting sex, but it could equally mean getting anything one wants by using one's lack of commitment in a relationship where one behaves as if bonded. The only way out is to put up some boundaries, give consequences, and then the person will face the fact that they cannot have both the freedom of commitment but also the benefits of the bond. (being taken advantage of has nothing to do with beauty)

Friendzones are a product of culture and individuals that allow them--and even encourage them as some sort of better way than us cavemen. There are times and places that simply do not allow for the friendzone to happen without serious consequences. The funny example is someone who is close with a girl in some backwoods setting but then tries to friendzone until the father has his shotgun. Another fun example is the man who is friendly within an unfamiliar tribe and finds that he is forced to marry. At the other end are people who would friendzone every guy or girl if they could because no one ever sets a line and there are plenty of people willing to have the illusion of commitment and pay the realities of commitment to have that fantasy.

It might be hard to face, but in these scenarios one might need to accept that one's own motives are quite selfish and godless--whether you are the friendzonee or the friendzoner. And even if your motives are good--on either side--their actions might tip you off that all their niceness and beauty is a poisonous snake underneath. But if you have to earn and trick a person into being with you--who does NOT choose to want to on their own--then it is still a fantasy. Which really is no different than a fantasy friendzone with a marriage ceremony.

There are many forms of the friendzone. Because it is a matter of trying to have the benefits and gains without risk or cost--at the expense of someone else. A more tricky friendzone is when someone acts and talks as if bonded but is indecisive about the possibility of a future. It appears normal as if one is thinking things over, but no decision ever is actually made. They made the decision in action to get what they wanted, but now act as if they need time to think about making the decision after they got what they wanted. (again, not necessarily sex, but anything they wanted)

Another example: While the author said he wanted to stop using people, his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye was immediately used by many to justify taking advantage of people by refusing to commit and yet gain from acting on multiple bonds.

 

[Rose of Eden]

I always thought the friendzone was a function of the modern idea that friends cannot or should not date; not just a simple matter of attraction from one party that is not reciprocated.

I've been the recipient of both. It's not a big deal when affection isn't returned. That's normal. It's even ubiquitous. But it is really frustrating when you run into this: "Oh, I'd really LOVE to date you, but you're my friend! If we dated then you wouldn't be my friend anymore, and I don't want to lose that!"

So how much of the "friendzone" phenomenon is due to the "friends can't be lovers" idea, and how much of it is just disappointed suitors blaming it on a loose understanding of that? I don't know. In the latter case it's just excuse-making. But in the former it is a real problem.

When I hear things like the bolded, I just assume it to be an excuse, honestly. I don't think that the "friends can't be lovers" idea contributes much to friendzoning. Most people I think would risk "losing the friendship" if they really had strong feelings for their friend. I really think the friendzone is simply more about a lack of mutual attraction...and people taking advantage of others who aren't strong enough to put their foot down and leave.

Friendzones happen for a lot of reasons. But it appears to be like two people become intimate and bond. Then one wants to confirm that intimacy he or she is now committed to and depends on and enjoys, but the other denies any future promise or increase or action--although accepts the current level of connection. The person who feels overly attached now has trouble letting go. Evil or good motives aside--on both sides--that is what it looks like.

From there, it is quite easy to see how a "friends with benefits" might happen where a man or woman takes advantage of the intimacy--without commitment or investment. It is getting the best of both worlds scenario. Friends with benefits usually means getting sex, but it could equally mean getting anything one wants by using one's lack of commitment in a relationship where one behaves as if bonded. The only way out is to put up some boundaries, give consequences, and then the person will face the fact that they cannot have both the freedom of commitment but also the benefits of the bond. (being taken advantage of has nothing to do with beauty)

I agree. And I personally think that if you find yourself "stuck in the friendzone," it's your own fault. You can't control being put in the friendzone, but you can control whether you hang out there and let the other person take full advantage of you. I've been friendzoned before, as most of us have, but I sure as heck don't hang out there! Once I'm friendzoned...I'm GONE lol! I refuse to be a desperate fool and let some guy take advantage of me.

Things that would normally be reserved for relationships or a marriage (like a deep emotional connection, talking on the phone a lot, cuddling, holding hands, sex for marriage, etc.)...I call those things boyfriend and husband privileges. Any man who doesn't want to commit, doesn't get those privileges. Simple as that. I don't tolerate "friends with benefits" in any way, shape, or form.

Another example: While the author said he wanted to stop using people, his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye was immediately used by many to justify taking advantage of people by refusing to commit and yet gain from acting on multiple bonds.

Those people who used his book to justify that behavior clearly misunderstood his book. I've read that book (a few times actually) and Joshua Harris says in it that it's best not to form such close relationships with the opposite sex unless you already have feelings for them and want to get to know them better.

 

[jess9450]

When I hear things like the bolded, I just assume it to be an excuse, honestly. I don't think that the "friends can't be lovers" idea contributes much to friendzoning. Most people I think would risk "losing the friendship" if they really had strong feelings for their friend. I really think the friendzone is simply more about a lack of mutual attraction...and people taking advantage of others who aren't strong enough to put their foot down and leave.




I agree. And I personally think that if you find yourself "stuck in the friendzone," it's your own fault. You can't control being put in the friendzone, but you can control whether you hang out there and let the other person take full advantage of you. I've been friendzoned before, as most of us have, but I sure as heck don't hang out there! Once I'm friendzoned...I'm GONE lol! I refuse to be a desperate fool and let some guy take advantage of me.

Things that would normally be reserved for relationships or a marriage (like a deep emotional connection, talking on the phone a lot, cuddling, holding hands, sex for marriage, etc.)...I call those things boyfriend and husband privileges. Any man who doesn't want to commit, doesn't get those privileges. Simple as that. I don't tolerate "friends with benefits" in any way, shape, or form.


Those people who used his book to justify that behavior clearly misunderstood his book. I've read that book (a few times actually) and Joshua Harris says in it that it's best not to form such close relationships with the opposite sex unless you already have feelings for them and want to get to know them better.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[wannaberocker]

Oh this is painful to read lol.

 

[MacFall]

Yeah... hotlink redirects are always painful to read.

 

[wannaberocker]

Yeah... hotlink redirects are always painful to read.

Is it showing a hotlink redirect ? on my side it actually shows the picture posted.

 

[MacFall]

That's because the picture is in your cache.

If it's on Funnyjunk you can't hotlink it. You probably also can't find the URL to host it on imgur or whatever, but you can try.

 

[Sweet Melody]

Edit.

 

[redblue22]

Rose, thank you for the response. I feel understood.

I like your emphasis on how someone can say they only want to be a friend, but you are out of there.

It is tempting for me to assign blame or motive or character flaw, But I know we all can get in over their heads unintentionally--on both sides. It is at that point that really matters. We might not feel like we know how to get out, except by some very uncomfortable not nice things. BUT the alternative is worse. At that point we decide whether to lead someone on, use them, be used ourselves--or let go. (I was also thinking that the using could go either way)

 

[Paulie079]

When I hear things like the bolded, I just assume it to be an excuse, honestly. I don't think that the "friends can't be lovers" idea contributes much to friendzoning. Most people I think would risk "losing the friendship" if they really had strong feelings for their friend. I really think the friendzone is simply more about a lack of mutual attraction...and people taking advantage of others who aren't strong enough to put their foot down and leave.

I agree. And I personally think that if you find yourself "stuck in the friendzone," it's your own fault. You can't control being put in the friendzone, but you can control whether you hang out there and let the other person take full advantage of you. I've been friendzoned before, as most of us have, but I sure as heck don't hang out there! Once I'm friendzoned...I'm GONE lol! I refuse to be a desperate fool and let some guy take advantage of me.

I do have to push back on this, though, and point out that these two paragraphs seem to be assuming that anyone who "friendzones" someone else is taking advantage of them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking a person romantically and still wanting to be their friend. But I would say it's not right to automatically abandon the friendship because the person you like doesn't like you back.

 

[Rose of Eden]

I do have to push back on this, though, and point out that these two paragraphs seem to be assuming that anyone who "friendzones" someone else is taking advantage of them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking a person romantically and still wanting to be their friend. But I would say it's not right to automatically abandon the friendship because the person you like doesn't like you back.

No, I don't mean to imply that everyone who friendzones takes advantage of their friend who sticks around. It happens often, but often not as well.

And when I abandon ship after being friendzoned, I typically don't cut the person off entirely. I'll still talk to them and maybe even "be their friend" technically. But I'll cut off the level of closeness we once had; I'll distance myself from them so that we won't be close anymore. And I guess part of that is because of my philosophy in believing that being BFFs with a guy is a waste of my time. I love having guy friends and I love all of my guy friends (including the ones on CF! ), but to me, to have the level of closeness with with a guy friend where you're basically like BFFs is wasting my time. I consider that something to reserve only for a boyfriend (or potential boyfriend) or a husband. To put that much time and energy into a man where, frankly, I'm not getting anything out of it because it's not going anywhere...well I consider that a waste of my time.

I'm not saying necessarily that that's the best attitude to have. But that's how I feel.

 

[Rose of Eden]

Oh this is painful to read lol.

This just goes to illustrate why it's ALWAYS a bad idea to ask someone out via text.

 

[Paulie079]

No, I don't mean to imply that everyone who friendzones takes advantage of their friend who sticks around. It happens often, but often not as well.

And when I abandon ship after being friendzoned, I typically don't cut the person off entirely. I'll still talk to them and maybe even "be their friend" technically. But I'll cut off the level of closeness we once had; I'll distance myself from them so that we won't be close anymore. And I guess part of that is because of my philosophy in believing that being BFFs with a guy is a waste of my time. I love having guy friends and I love all of my guy friends (including the ones on CF! ), but to me, to have the level of closeness with with a guy friend where you're basically like BFFs is wasting my time. I consider that something to reserve only for a boyfriend (or potential boyfriend) or a husband. To put that much time and energy into a man where, frankly, I'm not getting anything out of it because it's not going anywhere...well I consider that a waste of my time.

I'm not saying necessarily that that's the best attitude to have. But that's how I feel.

I figured you weren't entirely a relationship-or-nothing type of person when it comes to guys, but I thought it would be good for you to say that and iron that wrinkle out yourself. It's definitely true that you're not going to have the same relationship with someone after there has been interest followed by rejection.

 

[wannaberocker]

No, I don't mean to imply that everyone who friendzones takes advantage of their friend who sticks around. It happens often, but often not as well.

And when I abandon ship after being friendzoned, I typically don't cut the person off entirely. I'll still talk to them and maybe even "be their friend" technically. But I'll cut off the level of closeness we once had; I'll distance myself from them so that we won't be close anymore. And I guess part of that is because of my philosophy in believing that being BFFs with a guy is a waste of my time. I love having guy friends and I love all of my guy friends (including the ones on CF! ), but to me, to have the level of closeness with with a guy friend where you're basically like BFFs is wasting my time. I consider that something to reserve only for a boyfriend (or potential boyfriend) or a husband. To put that much time and energy into a man where, frankly, I'm not getting anything out of it because it's not going anywhere...well I consider that a waste of my time.

I'm not saying necessarily that that's the best attitude to have. But that's how I feel.

to be honest i dont see much wrong with this mindset. So you have made a decision to be bff's with a bf or future husband. It makes sense that you dont wanna be that close to other dudes, where you know its not gonna lead to anything. Its not a mainstream idea these days, but i think its valid enough.

 

[wannaberocker]

This just goes to illustrate why it's ALWAYS a bad idea to ask someone out via text.

Lol it just proves that when ya "Jokingly" ask out a freind and she "Jokingly" turns ya down. There is no need to serisouly ask her out because at that point she will seriously turn you down lol.

 

[Strider1002]

Lol it just proves that when ya "Jokingly" ask out a freind and she "Jokingly" turns ya down. There is no need to serisouly ask her out because at that point she will seriously turn you down lol.

Yeah, you'll never have to deal with disappointment or rejection if everything you say is just a joke.

 

[NoodlesNoodlesNoodles]

Okay, so I'll ask the question that everyone wants to but no one dares.

WHO WANTS TO MAKE OUT?!

 

[wannaberocker]

Okay, so I'll ask the question that everyone wants to but no one dares.

WHO WANTS TO MAKE OUT?!

you just killed the mood.

 

[anewday]

Okay, so I'll ask the question that everyone wants to but no one dares.

WHO WANTS TO MAKE OUT?!