Why do guys get put into the friendzone?

[phineas]

There's no such thing as being "put into the friendzone". There are, however, women I want to date who do not want to date me, but all this talk about "the friendzone" is just claptrap.

 

Yes & No.

Like you the "friendzone" was swallowed up by a black hole in my universe and no longer exists.

 

We do not agree to be just friends with women we want to date.

We disregard them & seek women who do want to date us.

 

For some other guys it does exist because they settle for "just friends" in hopes of more.

[verhrzn]

PS: The "sex zone" happens to me all the time. I can't find a boyfriend for anything, but I usually end up in an FWB every 6 months or so after I've gone crazy from loneliness and desperation.

[zengirl]

There's me thinking what goes on in our heads - men and women - is our own business, kind of like free will and all that, and yet the eternal question of can men and women be friends seems to be built on the assumption that finding someone sexy or attractive at any time intrinsically excludes any fondness or affection or liking one might have for them.

 

No, of course, you're right. But having a romantic fixation on a person is going to essentially negate the friendship. That's what seems to happen with guys who feel FZed --- they put their "friends" on a pedestal and romantically fixate on her to the degree where seeing her as the person she really is and appreciating her friendship for what it is without any hope of escalating it is impossible, and the friendship becomes toxic.

 

Of course, you can find a friend objectively attractive or even find them sexually appealing and choose not to act on that or have it as a passing thought. However, a lot of anger usually comes from the toxic mindset I detailed, and when someone gets angry or upset or frustrated with someone for not adhering to their desires to date them, they're not being a friend.

 

IMO, the primary reason men get put into the friendzone is that women seem to have a very set mentality in guys. Once she decides that a guy will be a friend, that will never change, acts of God notwithstanding. And that decision can be made very quickly. While a guy can fall for a girl and feelings will develop out of nowhere.

 

I've known guys who make up their minds right away and girls who change their minds (it is a woman's prerogative, as the saying goes) about dating. However, what does happen is women are FAR more likely to lie and say it's them than admit that they will never want to date the person and it's never going to happen. It has to do with relative assertiveness training we provide young boys and girls, I think. Women over 30 or even in their mid 20s are far less likely to keep orbiters, even if single, because they've learned to assert themselves and found value in it.

 

The more time I spent with her and the better I got to know her, the deeper my feelings grew.

 

Did this ever happen with someone you found physically unappealing from the beginning?

[somedude81]

2) He doesn't show any interest in dating me.

 

This occurs within 3-5 good conversations of meeting a guy. (A "good" conversation is one in which you discuss more than either the weather or your immediate surroundings.)

What do you do if he starts showing interest at a later time? After you already locked him in the friendzone?

[wwwjd]

You and I seem to be the only guys on LS who are wired this way -- unfortunately, I could never pull this approach off when I was single. Women always had bfs, fiances, husbands -- when I actually managed to meet someone who was single, the open time window was always very short. Over this year that you and your partner were just friends, did she have a bf or casually dating or was she single the whole time?

 

 

hahahaha you might be right! Only ones.

 

I think she had a BF that was tanking when I started working there, and I had a GF that was tanking. But neither of us were instantly attracted, nor looking for rebound. So, we just worked together, and our growing was growing closer than further apart. I could say we were both single MOST of that time.

 

It's weird reading here, "we had sex, but now things aren't working out" and I'm thinking sex is anywhere, it is the WORKING OUT part that makes everything special. Cart before horse and all that.

[verhrzn]

What do you do if he starts showing interest at a later time? After you already locked him in the friendzone?

 

The... 2?... times it's happened, I refuse them because I'm offended and my ego is hurt. If a guy isn't interested when he first meets me, it's because he doesn't find me physically attractive. If he starts finding me attractive once he gets to know me, that means my personality has "over riden" my looks and ya know what, I am so so so sick of ending up in that situation.

 

Honestly, the friend zone is mostly about protection. I have put a guy there because he has, in some way, demonstrated that he would be bad for me relationship-wise, but isn't a bad guy. He stays there not because of necessarily how I feel, but because of who HE is... someone that is not compatible with me.

[somedude81]

I've known guys who make up their minds right away

I really don't know how other guys do it. All I have are my experiences and the countless stories of guys who fell for their best friend.

 

and girls who change their minds (it is a woman's prerogative, as the saying goes) about dating. However, what does happen is women are FAR more likely to lie and say it's them than admit that they will never want to date the person and it's never going to happen. It has to do with relative assertiveness training we provide young boys and girls, I think. Women over 30 or even in their mid 20s are far less likely to keep orbiters, even if single, because they've learned to assert themselves and found value in it.

Most stories I've heard of women changing their minds are ones in which they fell out of attraction for the guy. Never the other way around.

 

And women really do need to be more assertive.

 

Did this ever happen with someone you found physically unappealing from the beginning?

I've never actually been friends with somebody I found physically unappealing.

 

And if the girls I've been friends with have actually found me physically unappealing, then they have some crazy high standards. I'm not an ugly guy, nor am I fat, too skinny or too short, have bad hygiene or whatever actually turns girls off.

[zengirl]

Most stories I've heard of women changing their minds are ones in which they fell out of attraction for the guy. Never the other way around.

 

I know many, many women who changed their minds, though generally it's because either the woman or the guy changed in some way. Many women change their dating habits over time. I would say almost all women go through a variety of dating phases.

 

And women really do need to be more assertive.

 

I agree. We need to teach girls better about that and make it socially appealing for young girls to be assertive.

 

And if the girls I've been friends with have actually found me physically unappealing, then they have some crazy high standards. I'm not an ugly guy, nor am I fat, too skinny or too short, have bad hygiene or whatever actually turns girls off.

 

This is what I think you don't get about women and many, many men. To find someone unappealing for dating (I asked you about "physically" because it's A) least likely to change and B) what you care about most, but it can be other stuff that is romantically unappealing), it does not require they be grotesque in some way. People who either have options or believe they will have options or are relatively happy single will find many more people unappealing than someone who desperately wants a relationship. At any rate, many of the things women I know find unappealing in the men they friendzone are not some absolute list of physical traits. Even when women find someone unappealing physically, they rarely analyze it that way. I'm not sure if most men do or not, but I'm quite sure that's not how women consider attractiveness. They are far more holistic about it.

[oaks]

Yes & No.

Like you the "friendzone" was swallowed up by a black hole in my universe and no longer exists.

 

We do not agree to be just friends with women we want to date.

We disregard them & seek women who do want to date us.

 

Yes, exactly.

 

For some other guys it does exist because they settle for "just friends" in hopes of more.

 

So it's really the "lame guy zone" ?

 

Ok, so maybe it exists, but it's not a place they get put by the woman, but a place they put themselves by continuing to confirm the existence of the disinterested woman.

[somedude81]

The... 2?... times it's happened, I refuse them because I'm offended and my ego is hurt. If a guy isn't interested when he first meets me, it's because he doesn't find me physically attractive. If he starts finding me attractive once he gets to know me, that means my personality has "over riden" my looks and ya know what, I am so so so sick of ending up in that situation.

 

Honestly, the friend zone is mostly about protection. I have put a guy there because he has, in some way, demonstrated that he would be bad for me relationship-wise, but isn't a bad guy. He stays there not because of necessarily how I feel, but because of who HE is... someone that is not compatible with me.

That is jumping to a lot of conclusions.

 

Just because a guy takes a while to ask you out, doesn't say that he couldn't have been attracted to you from the start.

 

But as you said, it's something you do to protect yourself.

[betterdeal]

No, of course, you're right. But having a romantic fixation on a person is going to essentially negate the friendship.

 

I disagree. Having amorous feelings for someone is not the problem. Most people, men and women, will sexually objectify - find sexually attractive - people they come into contact with from time to time. When you're horny, you're likely to direct that horniness at what's near you, subject to it not being what you consider ugly. That's not the problem. It's how people manage those feelings that makes or breaks any friendship. Romantic feelings do not essentially negate a friendship; hanging onto them and fostering them in spite of them not being reciprocated is the problem.

 

That's what seems to happen with guys who feel FZed --- they put their "friends" on a pedestal and romantically fixate on her to the degree where seeing her as the person she really is and appreciating her friendship for what it is without any hope of escalating it is impossible, and the friendship becomes toxic.

 

I agree with this. Men and women do it, but men more so in my experience. I don't know why you put the word "friends" in quote marks.

 

Of course, you can find a friend objectively attractive or even find them sexually appealing and choose not to act on that or have it as a passing thought. However, a lot of anger usually comes from the toxic mindset I detailed, and when someone gets angry or upset or frustrated with someone for not adhering to their desires to date them, they're not being a friend.

 

They're not being friendly, granted, but friends do fight and fall out and hate each others guts and make up and learn and grow from it so I'd shy away from saying they're not a friend.

 

Then again, there's times when unrequited love is what some people need. It's reliable. It doesn't require you being vulnerable. It doesn't let you down. Like its buddies, regret and guilt, it can be a very effective barrier to put between you and other people. Not a very nice or enjoyable one, and one that can make you just as miserable as guilt or regret can, but sometimes a blunt instrument is the only tool available.

 

Reaching a higher state of being in which you accept being rejected - and rejecting - as part of life, with grace, and you see feelings as ephemeral, passing things, that's when you feel more alive, more present, and more vulnerable to life. Freedom can be scary, but it can be exhilarating too.

[somedude81]

I know many, many women who changed their minds, though generally it's because either the woman or the guy changed in some way. Many women change their dating habits over time. I would say almost all women go through a variety of dating phases.

Change their minds in what way?

 

I'm talking about a woman decided a man is a friend, then letting him out of the zone. That doesn't happen, except in very rare circumstances.

 

This is what I think you don't get about women and many, many men. To find someone unappealing for dating (I asked you about "physically" because it's A) least likely to change and B) what you care about most, but it can be other stuff that is romantically unappealing), it does not require they be grotesque in some way.

I had issue with the word unappealing.

 

Basically I'm seeing the range as

 

appealing

neutral

unappealing

 

To answer your previous question, I have fallen for several of my female friends when I had neutral, zero, attraction for them at first. But it wasn't anything negative. I've never had a female friend that actually physically turned me off.

 

I expect that all of the my female friends who didn't want to date me, saw me as neutral. And their level of attraction to me did not change. I highly doubt any of them were actually turned off by me. Hell, D even acknowledged that she thought I was good looking, even though she wasn't attracted to me.

 

And no, the physical aspect is not the most important to me. As long as my minimums are met, I would choose a less attractive girl whose fun and has a great personality over a beauty I have nothing in common with.

 

I also acknowledge that my looks are not the primary reason why I'm having so much trouble. They certainly aren't helping and my height is a negative, but there are other areas that I'm currently lacking in. And they have to make up for my looks not being a plus.

 

People who either have options or believe they will have options or are relatively happy single will find many more people unappealing than someone who desperately wants a relationship. At any rate, many of the things women I know find unappealing in the men they friendzone are not some absolute list of physical traits. Even when women find someone unappealing physically, they rarely analyze it that way. I'm not sure if most men do or not, but I'm quite sure that's not how women consider attractiveness. They are far more holistic about it.

[NeverDated]

To the bolded--ridiculous. As if grown men have no use for women in their life that they don't find sexually attractive.

 

Of course, a man (or woman) may be sexually attracted to a friend. Big deal. That doesn't make them any less friends. This may be more common when both are already in a primary romantic relationship, and require a more mature idea of "friendship" (not someone you go clubbing with, but someone you share holidays with, lean on when you need help, support through tough times, celebrate births and weddings, etc).

You're making a distinction where it doesn't need to be made. Mature friends can establish boundaries and mutually accept that a romantic relationship is not possible, making the decision to not pursue one.

 

Many women "friendzone" because they either a) refuse to accept that (as you said, a mature view of friendship) or b) want to manipulate the situation for their own ego (keep the guy fawning all over her). Women typically know this intuitively (that men are only friends with women they find attractive - ie, f***able - to one degree or another) and use it to their benefit unfortunately often.

[zengirl]

I disagree. Having amorous feelings for someone is not the problem.

 

That's why I used to word fixation.

 

Most people, men and women, will sexually objectify - find sexually attractive - people they come into contact with from time to time. When you're horny, you're likely to direct that horniness at what's near you, subject to it not being what you consider ugly. That's not the problem. It's how people manage those feelings that makes or breaks any friendship. Romantic feelings do not essentially negate a friendship; hanging onto them and fostering them in spite of them not being reciprocated is the problem.

 

We agree. Right, the latter part is what I'm saying.

 

I agree with this. Men and women do it, but men more so in my experience. I don't know why you put the word "friends" in quote marks.

 

Because at that point, they have ceased to be friends. The woman (or man if we reverse the genders) has just not been honestly told in all cases.

 

They're not being friendly, granted, but friends do fight and fall out and hate each others guts and make up and learn and grow from it so I'd shy away from saying they're not a friend.

 

Sure, but I do not believe a friend ever denies another friend's essential agency and personhood. To me, that's essentially what objectifying someone (to the degree where it becomes a fixation) does. It depends on the circumstances, of course, but I'm speaking more the the mindset as I've seen it on LS.

 

Change their minds in what way?

 

I'm talking about a woman decided a man is a friend, then letting him out of the zone. That doesn't happen, except in very rare circumstances.

 

You're right it rarely happens. Especially with the men who wait for it to happen or hang their hopes on it. When it does happen, it is usually because the man was organically changing, and the woman was organically changing, and neither was waiting for the other to change or expecting it to happen. (This is true of the "sex zone" too.) I've seen women date men who were sincere friends---not orbiters---after knowing them awhile or date men they'd previously rejected, etc. It doesn't happen often, nor does it happen often that men date someone they've previously rejected. When it does happen, it's because one or both have changed or because circumstances are dramatically different.

 

Trying to orchestrate that is impossible and hopeless, and it's why no one should put themselves in the FZ and instead should just assert themselves, go after who they want, and accept the answer given as unchanging.

 

I had issue with the word unappealing.

 

Basically I'm seeing the range as

 

appealing

neutral

unappealing

 

Hmm, perhaps there is a middle range, but I would put it as "needs more information" -- when I feel I have all the information (with looks, this is far easier, than with character, of course), a person is firmly in one camp or another. I think many people react as such. They'd date someone or they wouldn't. There's no neutral.

 

I find the word neutral interesting. Essentially, the FZ is a person (generally male) who sticks himself in neutral and then blames 'circumstances' or the women.

 

At any rate, the "information" can change. I do think you're more likely to easily do well with someone new if you significantly improve yourself than the people who saw you before the improvements and remember that impression. That's human nature. But I have seen people change their minds. It's rare, but I wouldn't say men are more likely to do so than women. I know men who make up their minds very quickly as well. I imagine the men who FZ themselves are not those men -- as they are generally more passive, indecisive men.

 

To answer your previous question, I have fallen for several of my female friends when I had neutral, zero, attraction for them at first. But it wasn't anything negative. I've never had a female friend that actually physically turned me off.

 

I think perhaps you cannot see how many people view attraction since you are inexperienced. In terms of physicality, a man may be neutral -- which would put him in "needs more information," but then his other traits become more important and weighted. Which is why I've continuously said developing those other traits in positive ways can help. What you're seeing, if attraction grows when you get to know someone, is that you are getting more information. MANY women feel more strongly about dating or not dating a guy after getting more information --- thing is, the guys who FZ themselves have bad "more information" generally because the whole act of constantly FZing yourself shows a character trait most women dislike: a lack of social skills and a lack of guts or chutzpah or whatever you want to call it.

 

It also, as V says, tends to make women who question their worth feel unwanted. I wouldn't feel the way she says she does, but women like me don't wait for a guy to make a move.

 

I expect that all of the my female friends who didn't want to date me, saw me as neutral. And their level of attraction to me did not change. I highly doubt any of them were actually turned off by me. Hell, D even acknowledged that she thought I was good looking, even though she wasn't attracted to me.

 

I suspect they saw you as undateable. (I don't say this in a mean way.) Again, for most people, there are multiple factors to this.

 

And no, the physical aspect is not the most important to me. As long as my minimums are met, I would choose a less attractive girl whose fun and has a great personality over a beauty I have nothing in common with.

 

OK, I will rephrase: the physical is what you talk about the most so it is what you present as the most important.

Edited April 9, 2012 by zengirl

[phineas]

Yes, exactly.

 

 

 

So it's really the "lame guy zone" ?

 

Ok, so maybe it exists, but it's not a place they get put by the woman, but a place they put themselves by continuing to confirm the existence of the disinterested woman.

 

YES!

 

A woman can put me in her friendzone after i've attempted to date her.

 

But when she goes to take a look at her captive she will see the prison is empty.

[GoodOnPaper]

At any rate, many of the things women I know find unappealing in the men they friendzone are not some absolute list of physical traits. Even when women find someone unappealing physically, they rarely analyze it that way. I'm not sure if most men do or not, but I'm quite sure that's not how women consider attractiveness. They are far more holistic about it.

 

Interesting that you use the word "holistic" because from inside the friendzone, this analysis can appear very compartmentalized. My perception: "You want to be 'friends' and spend 1-on-1 time with me yet I'm so physically unappealing to you (and presumably to other women as well) that up front you know that there is no possible chance of deeper feelings ever developing"???

[zengirl]

Interesting that you use the word "holistic" because from inside the friendzone, this analysis can appear very compartmentalized. My perception: "You want to be 'friends' and spend 1-on-1 time with me yet I'm so physically unappealing to you (and presumably to other women as well) that up front you know that there is no possible chance of deeper feelings ever developing"???

 

Okay, I can sort of see that (if I mentally squint). Thing is, what people look for in friendships is very broad and generally easy to meet. What we look for in relationships should be FAR more picky. Perhaps a few people are extremely picky with their friends (many are picky with their close friends, but those friendships take time to develop) but most people are far more open to friendship than romance --- as one is inclusive and the other exclusive.

 

Someone who I view holistically and assess to be a good friend would certainly be closer than someone I view to be totally toxic to relationship material, but relative closeness is irrelevant. You have to match it. Very few women who have any hope of options at all are going to date men who don't fall within their holistic view of what they want, though that view is continually evolving generally. I honestly think very few men with options or any hope of options are going to get into relationships with (they may date them, or sleep with them, but they won't commit to them and stay with them loyally) women who don't meet their criteria either, and I think most men who are successful view this holistically as well.

 

Women and men who are unsuccessful are far more likely to compartmentalize and checklist and such.

[betterdeal]

Sure, but I do not believe a friend ever denies another friend's essential agency and personhood. To me, that's essentially what objectifying someone (to the degree where it becomes a fixation) does. It depends on the circumstances, of course, but I'm speaking more the the mindset as I've seen it on LS.

 

Fair enough. I see your point and agree. I don't know how much the guys who express their frustration in the way we're referring to actually feel that way. Given that in most cases vulnerability is central to the problem, for them, and our cultures encourage anger - a secondary emotion - in men, I tend to assume there's something less monotone underneath the rage response. I may be completely wrong, but that's how I suspect things are. I am not threatened by such behaviour (although sisters and friends have been) so maybe that changes the angle of the prism through which I see it.

[dasein]

Guys put themselves into the "friend zone" by being (fake) friends with a woman they fear would reject them outright if they suggested a date.

 

The above is a tiny subclass of what people are referring to as "friendzone," guys who can't get up the nerve to express feelings. Despite what we see in the movies, there just aren't many of those out there.

 

A larger subclass happens when a man is actually rebuffed in his expression of desire by the woman and then seeks to use the backdoor of friendship to get sex or a relationship from a particular woman. But IMO and IME that's a small subset also, guys who got turned down but hang around hoping something will change.

 

Far more likely, the largest subset of "friendzone," is a man with moderate or little experience with women taking her at her word that she would like to be "friends first," when that was simply a medicinal lie to spare her (and sometimes his) feelings.

 

He believes her portrayal of a scenario where she cultivates male friends and then selects one of them as her BF. Not implausible to the young or relatively inexperienced.

 

So IMO the "friendzone" results most often from believing a lie that women tell frequently, in not seeing the lie for what it is and simply moving on. Once men become more experienced, they hear the implicit rejection in the "ljbf" lie as a cue to vamoose, as posters have described in this thread.

 

But nice try at suggesting the phenomenon is primarily a function of -male- insincerity. Honest people of substance NEVER use the "LJBF" lie in lieu of a direct rejection.

[zengirl]

I also wanted to say,

 

I do think even when women seem to be checklisting, they're more validating their decisions, which are made holistically, than actually doing that. Most women I know make the decision about romance or no, based on their overall (holistic) impression of the guy, and THEN look for validation for it. I do not know if men operate that way or not. A man could perhaps say better.

 

Fair enough. I see your point and agree. I don't know how much the guys who express their frustration in the way we're referring to actually feel that way. Given that in most cases vulnerability is central to the problem, for them, and our cultures encourage anger - a secondary emotion - in men, I tend to assume there's something less monotone underneath the rage response. I may be completely wrong, but that's how I suspect things are. I am not threatened by such behaviour (although sisters and friends have been) so maybe that changes the angle of the prism through which I see it.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this either. I don't assume what is or isn't underneath the behavior, but I do think -- just as we need to give young girls better assertiveness training and help them be less passive, we need to give young boys the emotional tools to master feelings without aggression. We can do better in general with this, and things are improving.

[zengirl]

Far more likely, the largest subset of "friendzone," is a man with moderate or little experience with women taking her at her word that she would like to be "friends first," when that was simply a medicinal lie to spare her (and sometimes his) feelings.

 

The FZ discussed on LS is not really the "friends first" phenomenon -- which I did outline, and which I do think many relationships AND rejections come from. So far as I've seen, the guys on this board who most frequently complain about FZing were never told by the women they fixate on that they had any chance at a relationship and that the women preferred them to be friends first. Nor do I think the OP has been in that position.

 

I have also seen many male posters on this board who prefer "friends first" dating or friendship. It seems murky to me, from either perspective, and so I never engaged in such dating or would advise it, but it seems also very much a choice to put yourself in it. That's what phineas and oaks are discussing, primarily, when a potential dating situation fizzles out and someone (more often the woman, though rarely sincerely -- she either wants the man to go away without having to fully reject him or she wants an orbiter, I think more frequently the former) decides there is no dating possible, only friendship. The appropriate response to that is to evacuate the zone, as phineas said.

[fishtaco]

Some really excellent responses already. Zengirl's post pretty much sums it up... YOU put yourself in friendzone.

 

When you meet someone you're interested in, there are two possibilities. She likes you romantically, or she doesn't.

 

If she likes you, well, there's no friendzoning. All you have to do is to not screw up big time, and you're good.

 

If she doesn't like you, that's when you walk away. What some men do in this situation, just like zengirl said, is they will stick around and be the "orbiter" and try to worm his way into her heart, which almost never works. For practical purposes, you should just assume there is NO WAY you can win someone's heart. You either have it or you don't.

 

I haven't gotten friendzoned for a long long time. Not because all women want me now -- I still get turned down, but because I don't stick around. Well, as in when I was single and in the game.

 

When men approach women, you are not chasing them. Don't chase. Your #1 mission objective is to find out if she's interested in you. If she is, carry on. If she's not, be polite, walk away, and go after the next woman. Rinse and repeat. Number game.

 

That 's the basics. But in practice there is some finesse in there to help your chances.

[ThatDudeXO]

Lack of physical attraction or chemistry. I've never been friendzoned with someone I dated, unless you count being dumbed and being told to "stay friends"

[dasein]

The FZ discussed on LS is not really the "friends first" phenomenon -- which I did outline, and which I do think many relationships AND rejections come from.

 

It's the same thing, the exact same thing. Woman uses a medicinal lie, man naively believes her. Sometimes the lie is "I want to be friends first before anything else," sometimes it's "let's just be friends," sometimes it's "I'm not ready for a relationship and what I really need now is a friend." However it's phrased, it is likely to cause massive confusion in inexperienced men, even some experienced men depending on how good the liar is at telling the lie. This confusion is needless and easily preventable by not telling lies. Perhaps this is why women refuse to date inexperienced men? They haven't learned to discern common female lies?

 

What a better world the dating world would be if people would master the simple line, "I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in dating you, and this is not going to change." But of course, that would be too easy, and would also make principessa feel bad awwwww, can't have that.

 

So far as I've seen, the guys on this board who most frequently complain about FZing were never told by the women they fixate on that they had any chance at a relationship and that the women preferred them to be friends first. Nor do I think the OP has been in that position.

 

OP doesn't talk about "guys on this board," but asks a general question about a general scenario anyone who has dated has experience with IRL. Moreover, nothing in OP or subsequent makes OP's personal situation an issue. Not suggesting you have malicious intent here, but the mod has already told us to make it about the topic itself and not the poster or posters here.

 

The fact is that the "friends first" sentiment is commonly expressed by women everywhere, here, out there, and especially on OLD sites. Anyone who scans female profiles on an OLD site could come to the legitimate belief that many women in the U.S., maybe even a majority, expect to be "friends first" before any physical or romantic involvement takes place.

 

Now along comes Nick the Naive, dates one of these women who states that in her profile, and when she says "LJBF" thinks "WOW! I'm doing GREAT!" She has invited me into the circle of friends from whom she will select a BF. But as we all know, Nick isn't really doing all that great, in fact, Friends First Florence is thinking "Why won't the idiot take a hint and scram!!??" or if she is evil "yet another thrall for my attention supply bwahaha!" and making no connection at all between her insincerity and the resulting confusion in Nick (or setting out purposefully to confuse Nick).

 

And THAT IMO is what the "friendzone" is all about. Female insincerity and inconsistency. Men, other than the few wormy guys who are trying to backdoor into sex or romance, are just victims of the resulting confusion. We can solve the "friendzone" problem overnight, right here and now, if women will agree to stop throwing out confusing signals that friendship is part of the path to romance with them when it plainly is no such thing.

[somedude81]

When men approach women, you are not chasing them. Don't chase. Your #1 mission objective is to find out if she's interested in you. If she is, carry on. If she's not, be polite, walk away, and go after the next woman. Rinse and repeat. Number game.

That's really all there is to it, isn't it?

 

And yet, I find it to be extremely disheartening.

 

Friendzone or no female company?

Edited April 9, 2012 by somedude81