Why do guys get put into the friendzone?

[betterdeal]

You can always say "I'd rather not" if someone says "let's just be friends". You can even say "I need some time away from you to process this" if you want to.

 

If you're sensitive to rejection, take a few weeks away from each other to get over it. You don't have to fall out permanently but, if that's what makes you feel better, do that.

[somedude81]

You can always say "I'd rather not" if someone says "let's just be friends". You can even say "I need some time away from you to process this" if you want to.

 

If you're sensitive to rejection, take a few weeks away from each other to get over it. You don't have to fall out permanently but, if that's what makes you feel better, do that.

Oddly enough I've actually done that with this last girl. Declined friendship, went no contact and had a few dates with somebody else over the summer.

 

Classes resumed in the fall and by chance she just happened to be in my class. There was no way I could ignore her in a 20 person class for 5 months. I just decided to go the friendship with her and hope something would happen instead of trying to pretend she didn't exist.

[FrustratedStandards]

Yep thats exactly it.

 

The only reason we friend zone guys is because they aren't attractive enough to be boyfriend material.

[betterdeal]

Oddly enough I've actually done that with this last girl. Declined friendship, went no contact and had a few dates with somebody else over the summer.

 

Classes resumed in the fall and by chance she just happened to be in my class. There was no way I could ignore her in a 20 person class for 5 months. I just decided to go the friendship with her and hope something would happen instead of trying to pretend she didn't exist.

 

Right, and your summer was better for it, surely? And given that you are now in the same room as each other not by direct choice, being on good terms is probably a good idea too. So long as you aren't investing more than pleasantries, maybe the odd quip, what's to lose from being gracious in defeat? She might not be ready for a bit of somedude loving, but other girls in class will take note of how well you behave. If you don't act a dick (in either direction - being stroppy or soppy) then you're a good candidate for meaningless, no strings sex (because there'd be no fallout) which is what you're looking for, right?

[somedude81]

Right, and your summer was better for it, surely? And given that you are now in the same room as each other not by direct choice, being on good terms is probably a good idea too. So long as you aren't investing more than pleasantries, maybe the odd quip, what's to lose from being gracious in defeat? She might not be ready for a bit of somedude loving, but other girls in class will take note of how well you behave. If you don't act a dick (in either direction - being stroppy or soppy) then you're a good candidate for meaningless, no strings sex (because there'd be no fallout) which is what you're looking for, right?

Oh, my mistake.

 

I didn't make this clear that this was in the past. This happened two summers ago. We've had a falling out since then, but I was just reminiscing on how I declined her initial LJBF offer and still ended up being friends later on.

[betterdeal]

Oh, my mistake.

 

I didn't make this clear that this was in the past. This happened two summers ago. We've had a falling out since then, but I was just reminiscing on how I declined her initial LJBF offer and still ended up being friends later on.

 

I wonder how you can improve on that? How about working on your boundaries and not letting your emotions run your life for you?

[jobaba]

 

Wait! Actually, my ten year relationship STARTED as NOTHING BUT Friends. I was not initially attracted, other than acknoledging she was female. Over a year as the basic friendship grew (we worked together) she became MORE attractive physically, sexually, emotionally, mentally, spiritaully.

 

Yup. That has happened to me twice. Most recently, a woman I had almost no attraction to I got to know over a long period of time and fell head over heels for her. For a while, looking at her and her pictures, I really thought she was the most beautiful woman on Earth. A woman I had very little attraction to begin with.

 

Of course I was rejected. To slowly fall for someone and then get complete rejection is the worst ever. That's why I try and convince all of the men on this site to stay away from falling for a friend. And if you do, just don't act on it. Just walk away. But nobody ever listens to me.

 

Yep thats exactly it.

 

The only reason we friend zone guys is because they aren't attractive enough to be boyfriend material.

 

Yea. That's pretty funny isn't it? Just an everyday situation.

 

It's funny when a guy falls for you because of YOU and thinks you are the most beautiful woman (what all women want) not because of your tits and ass but because of who YOU are and then your response is, "Get out of my face you ugly @#$^."

 

Yea. Real classy. Real humane...

[somedude81]

I wonder how you can improve on that? How about working on your boundaries and not letting your emotions run your life for you?

That made me chuckle.

 

It's just how I've been.

 

Also it was really hard when she represented what I desired most in the world. I never had a chance.

[somedude81]

Yea. That's pretty funny isn't it? Just an everyday situation.

 

It's funny when a guy falls for you because of YOU and thinks you are the most beautiful woman (what all women want) not because of your tits and ass but because of who YOU are and then your response is, "Get out of my face you ugly @#$^."

 

Yea. Real classy. Real humane...

And they can get away with it because of their tits and ass.

 

There will always be a sucker.

[FrustratedStandards]

 

Yea. That's pretty funny isn't it? Just an everyday situation.

 

It's funny when a guy falls for you because of YOU and thinks you are the most beautiful woman (what all women want) not because of your tits and ass but because of who YOU are and then your response is, "Get out of my face you ugly @#$^."

 

Yea. Real classy. Real humane...

 

Would you rather she date you, lie about really liking you, never have sex with you and cheat on you instead with a guy she's ACTUALLY attracted to?

[jobaba]

Would you rather she date you, lie about really liking you, never have sex with you and cheat on you instead with a guy she's ACTUALLY attracted to?

 

Never mind. It was just a bitter rant.

 

And they can get away with it because of their tits and ass.

 

There will always be a sucker.

 

I guarantee I will never be that sucker ever again...

[irc333]

I know a rather naive late 40's woman, that seems to be oblviouos to a man's intentions.

 

THere ws this group of people who planned on going on a camping event. This guy, around her age, asked her to join him in driving up together in his camper to be with said group.

 

 

They apparently shared sleeping arrangements in the same camper, they didn't sleep close together, but on opposite ends. I guess he was expecting some kind of romance to blossom after they left the woods.

 

Some people would come up to the camper and shake and shout, "If this campe is a rockin', don't come a knockin!" and get a good laugh.

 

Then, when they were on their way home, he wanted to stop by the beach with her, she went along for the ride, then he asked her to be his girlfriend.

 

She refused, and said she only thought of him as a friend. OUCH on his end.

 

 

When she would go to parties that other male friends would invite her to, or they'd "come together", these guys would try to come off as if they were a couple, by getting a little too close for comfort whiel mingling (ie - putting his hand on the small of her back or calling her" honey" or "sweetie"

 

she had to take a few guys to the side tot ell them to knock it off, a because everyone there WILL think they're a couple. LO

 

Man these guys , she really had to tell them off. It didn't end too pretty either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When a girl decides that she wants be friends as opposed to dating you, it's either she's trying to let you down soft (and has no intention of really being a friend) or she really does see you guys only as friends. Now, the former, I have experienced plenty of times. I know this because I have accepted the offer of friendship before and have had girls not flake or disappear on me, and I assume they were merely saying 'let's just be friends' to soften the rejection. The latter, when a girl actually wants to be friends, I haven't experienced yet but that's not to say that it hasn't happened for other people (and going from threads on this forum, it has). The issue is, as Zengirl has said, is when guys accept being 'friends' in the hope that the girl may one day be interested, as opposed to taking a risk of possible rejection by asking her straight out on a date. However, this rarely eventuates in the outcome desired by the guy (which is to be more than friends), which leaves him complaining about being 'friendzoned'. Another really common scenario I've seen is when a girl rejects a guy and the guy hangs around with the girl as friends in the hope that he can change her mind. What usually happens is the girl doesn't reciprocate any interest in anything more than being friends and the guy becomes very bitter. Personally, I don't thing guys get put into the 'friendzone' -- he puts himself in there, if there is one. "Let's just be friends" is saying that she doesn't want to date you. Why? She's probably not attracted to you, you might not have anything in common, she doesn't like the way you talk; it could be anything! Still doesn't change the fact that she doesn't want to date you.

 

I was on a first date with a girl, and instead of flirting with her and having a fun conversation, I was talking about the mundane things, uni, high school, work, etc; basically playing it really conservative and really safe. Although her attractiveness was enough to get me excited, on her end, she probably wasn't feeling it. She would have been interested at first, but as the date went on, I'm pretty sure I could feel her interest waning. When I tried to set up a second date, she suggested just being friends, which I refused. This happened with another girl I was on a date with, and I was really attracted to this girl. Same story but when she said she wanted to be friends, I accepted. Got to the point where I knew I was tricking myself in hoping one day she might change her mind; I knew my motivation for the friendship wasn't right, so I ended it. In both cases, I wasn't truly being myself. I was too conservative, bland, nervous and played things really safe; I wasn't comfortable with myself. I guarantee if I had been more assertive and talked about what I really wanted to talk about and just be more open and fun, things would have been different. I would have at least had a second date, and what could have happened from that, who knows. The best judge of future behaviour is past behaviour. So if those girls saw a boring, bland guy in the last date, what do they think is going to happen in the next date? (I know it's hard to judge through one date, but often they go by how the feel!) The same thing. We all want a bit of excitement, so instead of wondering what you should done or what you shouldn't have done, just do it! Take a risk.

[xxoo]

Telling someone you aren't interested in dating them? Easy peasy, and let's not pretend the primary concern is for -their- feelings. Most every man who has heard the phrase knows -exactly- for whose sake the lie is being told, and it isn't his sake.

 

It's easy for you. That doesn't mean it is easy for everyone.

 

Guys do this, too. They use the line "I'm not ready to get married" when the truth is "I don't want to marry you." It is up to the rejected person to decide if they want to continue the relationship under those circumstances (the friendship without dating, or the dating relationship without marriage).

 

And many times, the woman DO care about the man. You are painting the worst case scenario of a woman who doesn't like the guys, but uses them for attention. I'm sure that happens. But it also happens that a guy starts hanging out with a girl, having lunch together at school, taking classes together, sharing laughs together, and she really cares about him and enjoys his company--but isn't sexually attracted to him.

[zengirl]

Sorry zengirl, but I'm going to have to side with dasein on this one.

 

I really don't understand "friend first" dating. If you're dating you're not platonic friends, period. Platonic friends don't date, they are on different paths of "getting to know each other". But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the zengirl "friend first" method is distinctly different. However unfortunately, women out in the real world, many of them spew out this term like cheap beads during mardi gras.

 

I've actually never seen FF in the real world. Don't know any women that do it. I do know some men that will try to get a girl to hang out as friends first (they don't call it that) and not ask her out for months and months because they're not sure whether they actually want a romantic relationship. This is different than what FZed guys do, and they aren't really FZing the girls either because if the girl made a move, they'd probably go for it (come to think of it, maybe these are the scenarios the girls who have had issues with making the first move and getting hurt by it didn't avoid -- they're easy for me to spot, because I know that type of guy very well -- but that's for another thread ), but they are nice guys who want to be "sure" before they escalate something because they tend not to date casually. These guys are usually nice guys (in the case of my friends, nice, nerdy guys), but mildly commitment phobic. They do get into LTRs, but they aren't the most emotionally available types.

 

FWIW, I'm not doubting that some women intentionally keep orbiters, which seems to be what you're suggesting. However, some people on LS (men and women) have insisted they do 'friends first' dating, so it is likely a real thing -- not my style at all, and I agree with you it sounds absurd. I already said that. I disagree that it is usually the case that the woman is attempting to lie to a man or keep him as an orbiter when these FZ situations emerge, and from what I've seen (especially here on LS), it is usually the man's responsibility to avoid these situations, just as it is the woman's responsibility to avoid sleeping with men who won't commit and have admitted as much by pursuing casual or FWB situations.

 

Thank you. Just remember, you cannot earn someone's romantic feelings -- money, services, attention, it doesn't matter, it won't work. That's because romantic feelings are given out due to their own willingness; it's not a trade.

 

However, you CAN be friends with women. In fact, it'll help you meet more women, so I highly recommend it. As far as "don't accept friendship", it depends on how much control you have. If you can turn off your interest in her and just really be platonic friends, and this person is worth being friends with, for any reason, including she has hot friends, then do it. If you have a hard time, say if you get jealous if you see her flirting with other men, then it's best you don't even try to be friends with her.

 

This is really good advice.

 

"Friendzone" means, at its barest, the cross section of a woman's male acquaintances that she has no sexual interest in.

 

I disagree. FZ means a man who pretends to be a friend and wants more. My actual male friends are not in a FZ. We are just friends.

 

Your first post sought to lay all responsibility for the existence of the "friendzone" as a term on men for insincerely attempting to "trick" sex or a romantic interest out of women who didn't want one or in not taking "no" for an answer.

 

I don't think they're trying to "trick" them as much as trying to avoid taking action and hearing no.

 

Dishonestly phrased, typical and expected. The way it is actually phrased is "Let's just be friends," not "let's be friends," but I suspect you know that full well.

 

I don't even know what you mean here. The two phrases are not that different to me, but "Let's just be friends," is an absolute "no" and anyone who doesn't see that has no social skills or communication ability whatsoever. If the woman does not actually want to be friends or friendly acquaintances, I fully agree she should not use this phrase, but there are many times when a woman might want to be friends with a man she does not want to date. The man, of course, has the option to choose to be friends or not be friends, but this is a clear signal that dating will not happen.

 

"Let's pull out the grill and get some barbecue going," John says,

 

"Let's just make sandwiches," Jane says.

 

How does John not understand the implicit no in that statement? Anyone with the level of critical thinking and communication of a 3rd grader does. So, no, I'm not buying that it's poor communication because it's the way people talk about EVERYTHING. Expecting people to speak differently about dating than they normally communicate is flawed.

 

To add to that, I've seen a lot of occasions where guys really don't take the blunt approach very well and it threatens to escalate into quite a messy scenario, mostly emotional though potentially physical. Some guys really take it badly.

 

This is true as well. I'm extremely direct, and it's caused more than one scene when I've simply and politely told a man I was not interested.

[dasein]

I know a rather naive late 40's woman, that seems to be oblviouos to a man's intentions.

 

Don't believe it for a second. She knows -exactly- what is going on from the start. She is completely willing to accept the overtly sexual attention up to the point of any response on her part and then feign the ingenue as it suits her "who me? what? why? how did this happen?" Don't buy it, it's pure manipulation, and usually in these scenarios, she is giving overt signals of acceptance to boot, you just don't see that part.

 

This is such a pronounced form of female social deception that Sartre actually used it as a tongue in cheek example of self-deception in "Being and Nothingness."

[varonny]

Yup. That has happened to me twice. Most recently, a woman I had almost no attraction to I got to know over a long period of time and fell head over heels for her. For a while, looking at her and her pictures, I really thought she was the most beautiful woman on Earth. A woman I had very little attraction to begin with.

 

Of course I was rejected. To slowly fall for someone and then get complete rejection is the worst ever. That's why I try and convince all of the men on this site to stay away from falling for a friend. And if you do, just don't act on it. Just walk away. But nobody ever listens to me.

 

Having had to let down some friends that I'd known for YEARS, and know that they didn't become friends with me with ulterior motives, I have to agree with this. I felt bad for the guys and felt horrible about myself having to hurt them, and it really does make the friendship weird afterwards.

 

I'm not saying that reciprocated love forming from friendship is impossible, because it has happened to so many people, but just from experience it hasn't worked out for the friend in love.

[dasein]

It's easy for you. That doesn't mean it is easy for everyone.

 

Objectively, yes, in the world of uncomfortable things people say to others, turning people down sexually in a polite but direct way is small potatoes. If someone finds it particularly difficult, that's something they need to work on, not lazily resort to lying.

 

Guys do this, too. They use the line "I'm not ready to get married" when the truth is "I don't want to marry you."

 

Not equivalent at all.

 

First though, agree that if people lie to each other to feel more comfortable instead of being sincere and straightforward, and needless confusion results, whether it's "LJBF" or whatever lie a man might tell, that's wrong, and the liar is at least equally culpable with the naive or wishful believer for the dishonesty and the resulting confustion. No problem agreeing with that equal level of culpability at all... HINT HINT.

 

But the above quote is not an example of such. The man is not lying because "not ready to get married to you" is a consistent subset of "not ready to get married." Has he lied by omission? in not going into infinite detail about "well if the right woman came along blablabla?" No, he hasn't. There's a difference between expecting a clear statement of the truth, and expecting a complete "download" of all information. The former is a reasonable expectation, the latter not.

 

When a woman or anyone says "LJBF" the inherent dishonesty is in the patently absurd notion that friendship somehow precludes sexual interest. People regularly say of their spouse or SO, "we are best friends, they are my best friend." In adult logic land, the mere statement "LJBF" is irrational on its face, makes no sense. Yet when a woman says "LJBF" we are expected to accept it as meaning ?? (who knows) instead of the patent absurdity that it is. People of quality or substance don't use "LJBF" to rebuff others for this reason. As posted previously, what it most often means is "I am willing to entertain a relationship completely on my terms, in which you give something of value to me and I give nothing in return."

 

Or rather, every man who ever hears "LJBF" from a woman should instantly ask a favor of the woman and gauge the response. "Friends? Oh sure, I can do that, listen I'm going out of town for a few days, can you come walk my dog while I'm gone?" Guys, get back to us with the results. ROFLMAO. "Friendship" by any normal definition that includes "nice gestures and feelings running both ways" is absolutely NOT on the table when the LJBF is lobbed like a bomb as opposed to an honest rebuff, and therein is the lie.

[xxoo]

When a woman or anyone says "LJBF" the inherent dishonesty is in the patently absurd notion that friendship somehow precludes sexual interest.

 

That is why she included the word just.

 

Of course it is possible to be friends AND lovers. She just wants to be friends.

 

Or rather, every man who ever hears "LJBF" from a woman should instantly ask a favor of the woman and gauge the response. "Friends? Oh sure, I can do that, listen I'm going out of town for a few days, can you come walk my dog while I'm gone?" Guys, get back to us with the results. ROFLMAO. "Friendship" by any normal definition that includes "nice gestures and feelings running both ways" is absolutely NOT on the table when the LJBF is lobbed like a bomb as opposed to an honest rebuff, and therein is the lie.

 

It sounds like you are speaking about people who barely know each other, he asks her out, and she brushes him off with LJBF (never intending to be friends).

 

And I am speaking about people who have been hanging out as friends for a while, and would happily dog-sit for each other, but all along the guy has been wishing that she would develop romantic feelings for him.

[EasyHeart]

That is why she included the word just.

 

Of course it is possible to be friends AND lovers. She just wants to be friends.

Oh lordy, please don't say that!

 

Now we are going to get 100 threads titled "She said 'Let's be friends', so that means she wants to date me because she didn't say 'just'."

[zengirl]

Oh lordy, please don't say that!

 

Now we are going to get 100 threads titled "She said 'Let's be friends', so that means she wants to date me because she didn't say 'just'."

 

Ha, so true!

 

Look: it's the rectangle-square thing.

 

A square is a rectangle (people in love ARE friends and develop friendship as well as a multitude of other aspects to their relationship).

 

A rectangle is not a square (friends are not romantic in any way, shape, or form).

 

This is not hard to understand and can be an applicable across many lessons in life.

[dasein]

I disagree. FZ means a man who pretends to be a friend and wants more. My actual male friends are not in a FZ. We are just friends.

 

You continue to repeat the above overnarrow definition with no reasoning, despite that there are many types of ways the "friendzone" comes into play in dating, and that men who are afraid of expressing themselves is but a small subset of those. Of course, you want to define the term narrowly and too strictly because doing so allows 100% blame shift to men and 0% accountability on women. Transparent.

 

"Friendzone" at its barest, means the subset of a woman's male acquaintances she has no sexual interest in. This broad definition allows for lots of different scenarios where the possibility of sexual interest emerging or changing is low, not just the tiny narrow % involving men who are afraid of expressing their feelings. Men are accountable for their continuing naivete/persistence in hoping to convert situations where the woman is not interested into sexual relationships, and women are accountable for the lies they repeat over and over to men concerning "friendship."

 

I don't even know what you mean here. The two phrases are not that different to me, but "Let's just be friends," is an absolute "no" and anyone who doesn't see that has no social skills or communication ability whatsoever.

 

True friendship between people just happens. People don't negotiate it via phrases like "let's be friends." Personally, have never heard that phrase nor said it, ever. Moreover, the rejection/rebuff that is inherently part of the "friendzone" when "LJBF" is used is signified in the word "just," as in the absurdity, "friendship is a mutually exclusive 'fallback position' from sexual interest." The inherent lie in "LJBF" is in the "just" part.

 

 

If the woman does not actually want to be friends or friendly acquaintances, I fully agree she should not use this phrase,

 

That's all I wanted. Why is getting women to admit partial blame on female behavior for dating issues, or any accountability at all for anything on LS like pulling teeth? I started with "women are at least equally to blame" and instead of "yes they are," get all manner of twisting tortuous rationalizations, narrow definitions, etc. in response.

 

but there are many times when a woman might want to be friends with a man she does not want to date. The man, of course, has the option to choose to be friends or not be friends, but this is a clear signal that dating will not happen.

 

And then the qualifier. I disagree completely with the idea that women who use the LJBF want anything approaching the normal definition of friendship. Whatever it is they want, it isn't friendship.

 

"Let's pull out the grill and get some barbecue going," John says,

 

"Let's just make sandwiches," Jane says.

 

LOL, whatever. The actual equivalent would be:

 

"Let's pull out the grill and get some barbecue going," John says,

 

"I want chicken for dinner," Jane says.

 

John is left scratching his head, "does that mean grilled chicken is OK? does the fact she wants chicken preclude using the grill to cook it?"

 

Needless confusion is the result. So then John drags out the grill, starts the charcoal and begins thawing the chicken in the freezer.

 

Jane sees this and pitches a fit, "I said I wanted chicken for dinner, NOT grilled chicken!"

 

Needless confusion is the result. When Jane could have said simply "I don't want to grill tonight," and that would be that.

 

How does John not understand the implicit no in that statement? Anyone with the level of critical thinking and communication of a 3rd grader does.

 

Spare talk about 3rd grade communications when you refuse to set up a clear, apt analogy from the start.

[wwwjd]

I've actually never seen FF in the real world. Don't know any women that do it.

 

It's the only way I "Operate". And you won't know it while I'm doing that. Just sort of seems natural and fine.

[dasein]

That is why she included the word just.

 

Of course it is possible to be friends AND lovers. She just wants to be friends.

 

But if the category "friends" does not necessarily exclude the category "lovers" then the very statement "just friends" makes no sense, and could certainly include "friends and lovers."

 

The very notion "just friends," suggesting that friendship is some fallback position from romance, is a patent absurdity and the only reason we allow it is the inexplicable tolerance we have in a presumably "equal" culture for women to say stupid, irrational things in lieu of being direct and forthright. Millions of women have no problem at all expressing themselves in a direct, honest way. No idea what the problem with the rest of them is, brain damage? emotional children (as one female poster suggested in this thread)? sense of privilege to have any old stupid thing they say accepted, no matter how ridiculous? Because LJBF is an utterly ridiculous thing for one human being to say to another, regardless of gender, regardless of circumstances.

 

Is it really so difficult to admit that if there is a social/dating problem revolving around something called the "friendzone," that women are partially to blame for this due to the needlessly confusing messages they send out about "friendship?" This forum blows my mind.

[zengirl]

You continue to repeat the above overnarrow definition with no reasoning, despite that there are many types of ways the "friendzone" comes into play in dating, and that men who are afraid of expressing themselves is but a small subset of those. Of course, you want to define the term narrowly and too strictly because doing so allows 100% blame shift to men and 0% accountability on women. Transparent.

 

I'm defining it that way because it's the definition found in most places that define things; it's not an actual word in the dictionary, sadly, but here's the Wikipedia definition:

 

In popular culture, the "friend zone" refers to a platonic relationship where one person wishes to enter into a romantic relationship while the other does not. It is generally considered to be an undesirable situation by the lovelorn person.[1] Once the friend zone is established, it is said to be difficult to move beyond that point in a relationship.[1][2]

 

A similar definition is given on the Ask Men site and in several other places where such pop culture phrases are defined.

 

The lovelorn person, of course, doesn't have to be male. You can switch the genders in my description quite easily, and I never meant for one gender to be in any particular place. I think we can all agree that men are more frequently on one side and women on the other in this scenario, just as we can with the FWB but wants more scenario. Both can go either way though.

 

"Friendzone" at its barest, means the subset of a woman's male acquaintances she has no sexual interest in.

 

No. It would not mean that by any definition of it I've ever seen. That would be a totally different question, essentially asking why women don't want to date everyone they might allow in their lives (which has a lot of answers but is a really stupid question to ask because many people are going to be in our lives that we don't date), rather than what the OP seemed to have asked.

 

Logically, there has to be a difference between being friends (sincerely) and being in the friend zone or the term would not exist.

 

True friendship between people just happens. People don't negotiate it via phrases like "let's be friends."

 

"Let's be friends" does not, in and of itself, a friendship make, for sure. But it does lay the boundary down that nothing more will be possible. All that phrase does is express a boundary (the very thing you say it's not doing but most people understand it is), not form a friendship. A friendship could form or it could not form, after that boundary is established. fishtaco gives some great advice on when to be friends and when not to be friends above.

 

Personally, have never heard that phrase nor said it, ever. Moreover, the rejection/rebuff that is inherently part of the "friendzone" when "LJBF" is used is signified in the word "just," as in the absurdity, "friendship is a mutually exclusive 'fallback position' from sexual interest." The inherent lie in "LJBF" is in the "just" part.

 

I don't know any woman who suggests being friends with EVERY man she rejects, though I know many who use the phrase. Some use it sincerely and some don't. It is generally used either when a friendship or friendly acquaintance is truly desired or when the person perceives the other to be a kind, good person and wants to be nice about the rejection. Either way, it is a clear boundary and rejection of any romantic interest.

 

That's all I wanted. Why is getting women to admit partial blame on female behavior for dating issues, or any accountability at all for anything on LS like pulling teeth? I started with "women are at least equally to blame" and instead of "yes they are," get all manner of twisting tortuous rationalizations, narrow definitions, etc. in response.

 

It's the way you communicate, IMO. I already said as much in my initial posts that you came in trouncing. You don't read a full perspective and instead pick apart phrases you don't want, asserting your opinions as facts, and so forth. I allow for plenty of blame for women and men in many dating scenarios, and I have stated that some women keep orbiters, etc, etc, many times in this thread before you even came into it!

 

I'm not "narrowing" the definition of FZ. I'm using it in the only manner I've seen it used, on or outside of LS, while also discussing other similar relationship dynamics in a very detailed way. I expressly did that, and you conveniently ignored it.

 

And then the qualifier. I disagree completely with the idea that women who use the LJBF want anything approaching the normal definition of friendship. Whatever it is they want, it isn't friendship.

 

I think many do, as xxoo says it, especially when used with someone you already have some level of friendship established, which is when such conversations often happen. Very rarely does a woman get cold-approached at a bar, decline, and suggest friendship, I imagine.

 

"Let's pull out the grill and get some barbecue going," John says,

 

"I want chicken for dinner," Jane says.

 

This does not match the phrasing of the sentence at all the way mine did. You lose the structure of the language, from which we derive the meaning. Linguistically, it's a bad analogy.

 

Spare talk about 3rd grade communications when you refuse to set up a clear, apt analogy from the start.

 

My analogy was very clear.

[xxoo]

But if the category "friends" does not necessarily exclude the category "lovers" then the very statement "just friends" makes no sense, and could certainly include "friends and lovers."

 

I don't follow your logic at all. To me, it obviously does not include "friends and lovers" because she specified just friends.

 

 

 

The very notion "just friends," suggesting that friendship is some fallback position from romance, is a patent absurdity and the only reason we allow it is the inexplicable tolerance we have in a presumably "equal" culture for women to say stupid, irrational things in lieu of being direct and forthright. Millions of women have no problem at all expressing themselves in a direct, honest way. No idea what the problem with the rest of them is, brain damage? emotional children (as one female poster suggested in this thread)? sense of privilege to have any old stupid thing they say accepted, no matter how ridiculous? Because LJBF is an utterly ridiculous thing for one human being to say to another, regardless of gender, regardless of circumstances.

 

Is it really so difficult to admit that if there is a social/dating problem revolving around something called the "friendzone," that women are partially to blame for this due to the needlessly confusing messages they send out about "friendship?" This forum blows my mind.

 

This forum blows my mind as well!

 

Is it really so difficult to see that maybe we see things differently, but that doesn't make women liars, or brain damaged, or intentionally indirect?

 

I can not see how "just friends" can be interpreted as "possibly lovers". I would think that was a clear, but gentle, rejection of romantic interest, and be bewildered if the guy thought statement was a mixed message. It would be an mixed message if she acted like she wanted his sexual attention, but refused his advances, but that is certainly not true of all women who want to be just friends.