"The Friendzone" and persistence

[bilby]

I fail to see why this is so hard. If you value a woman's friendship, then you're not upset to be in the "friend zone." If, on the other hand, you hold consistently repugnant views that make people balk, well, don't be surprised when they don't want to hang around you, as a friend or otherwise.

Maybe when you die you can die with the satisfaction of being "right", but you'll still die alone.

But if you want more than friendship with the woman, then you should be upset if you end up in the friend zone, because it's not what you wanted from the relationship and that's a disappointment. It's like if you go to a particular restaurant because you want to eat their steak and they tell you that they're out of steak tonight, but the pasta is quite nice. There's nothing wrong with pasta and there are other restaurants you enjoy going to for the purposes of ordering it, but it's upsetting that you didn't get the steak you were looking for that night and had to settle for your second choice of meal.

When somebody you have feelings for does not reciprocate those feelings, it's a blow to you and it is correct to feel upset in that situation. Sure, you need to put on your big boy pants and move on and not harass the woman or anything like that, but I strongly disagree with the statement that getting put in the friend zone when that's not where you want the relationship to be is something you shouldn't be upset about in the first place.

Sure. But it's one thing to be mildly upset about having to eat the pasta or go elsewhere; and quite another to fire-bomb the restaurant, or to kidnap the chef and force him to cook you a steak.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Too big to post as image. Worth the click.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/751mvn/tumblr_takes_on_the_friend_zone_in_the_saltiest/

I'll be honest: I find the whole concept of "friendzone" idiotic.

I only have brothers. No sisters. Consequently, I place high value on platonic friendships with women. I have certain emotional needs when it comes to platonic friendships because in the parts of me that are very emotional and don't respond to reason, platonic friends are all substitute sisters. Crossing the line between friend and lover complicates and ruins what I get out of platonic friendships.

To a degree, I get something similar from friendships with gay men.

Platonic friends from opposite genders have friend-zoned eachother. That's what it means.

 

[ruby sparks]

Women were like: the photos do not show a view of the contents of their wallets.

Seriously though, I have read somewhere that women prefer different people for sex vs. for long term partners. Especially when they were ovulating they were attracted to sexy hunks (I wonder if your study differentiated by ovulation status). That would mean that women want different guys to procreate with vs. to help them raise those children. Scary!

All sorts of patterns of behaviour, or so I read, have been observed (and theorised). I think it's very complicated and I am no expert. But to generalise, your comment about wallets is not, apparently, completely wide of the mark. Women, it is said, are often more interested in the status (which nowadays often equates to or is associated with financial wealth) of a potential 'mate' than men are. This may partly explain why men in general compete (with each other) for status, are status-driven in other words. In some ways it's a response to female preferences, but really it's a two-way thing with both sexes responding to the other in a game that has (so far) ensured the continuance of the species. What this means is that because male status (another traditional facet of which is physical strength) is often correlated with aggression, women end up having to pay the unwanted price of aggression. Of course, in some ways, the aggression is good, because it indicates that a potential mate can protect her and any children. But it can backfire and be turned on the female.

Your other point is I think also right. And I read that it applies to men as well. Both sexes have different priorities depending on what they are aiming to get out of the relationship. Men want one thing from a woman they either want to be friendly with or shag (but not marry) and something different from a woman they hope to marry (or provide parental investment to). In the latter case, 'loyalty and virtue' (ie not shagging around) are good because it raises the chances of any children actually being yours if you are the male. It's only recently that paternity can be easily checked. So, we get the madonna/whore dichotomy and pejoratives around female promiscuity.

With women, the parental/nurturing urge seems to be stronger (not least it is said because sex and reproduction involves much higher risks and resources than for a male) and yes, I read that when women are ovulating, their behaviour and preferences change slightly. Human female ovulation, unlike that in many other species including other ape species, is secret, so male behaviour is apparently not subject to the same sort of ovulation-cycle changes, except when the woman's behaviour offers potential clues.

I have to end with a very big caveat that some of this is theory and also that it is more than just general, it is very general, so it would I think be wrong to apply it in individual cases. Plus, layers of social change have probably changed our behaviour more than most if not all other species. Our behaviour is broadly speaking responsive to altered circumstances and is in flux.

Sidenote: Feminism has tended to eschew evolutionary biological paradigms for fear that they can be (and I'm sure sometimes are) used to excuse or justify certain undesirable behaviours. This is understandable, but on the whole, I'm not in favour of it because it means that traits which probably do still have an actual bearing on human relationships are swept under the carpet. Needless to say, I'm in favour of looking at evolution and biology to understand not excuse.

 

[Jobar]

Persistence... I'm of the opinion that it can be a virtue, even in this context.

The trick is to avoid making a nuisance (or an active pain) of yourself. Gently persisting can show that you are seriously attracted, and are willing to ignore a certain amount of rejection in hopes of overcoming or working around the things that cause you to be rejected.

Of course there are degrees of rejection that should discourage even reasonable persistence. "I don't think we're compatible" is one thing; "If you speak to me again I'll call the police, creep" is quite another!

 

[Derec]

Bring this post back to reality and I'll continue.

What in particular do you think is unrealistic?

All of the disingenuous parts, mostly.

I haven't written anything disingenuous.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. But it's one thing to be mildly upset about having to eat the pasta or go elsewhere; and quite another to fire-bomb the restaurant, or to kidnap the chef and force him to cook you a steak.

But nobody here is justifying such actions!

 

[WAB]

I find almost everything about sexual relationships embarrassing, and I tend to be most content to stay well within the friend zone.

If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her, because I find the very idea of trying to impress or attract her incredibly embarrassing. If I were a peacock, I'd never show my fantail, and I'd never win the heart of a lady peacock.

Contrariwise, if a woman has told me she finds me attractive (and this happens exceedingly rarely), I find it embarrassing.

I find the sex act itself somewhat embarrassing (but not unenjoyable - I like sex very much), which probably accounts for the fact that I've only been with two women and I'm going to be 54 soon. And those two women had to pursue me, and let me tell you, I was embarrassed all through the incredibly embarrassing courtship ritual. Only after I had been intimate with these two women for a long period of time did the embarrassment wear off. Both were long term relationships.

The fact that I sometimes think I was supposed to be born a woman might account for this, but I'm certainly hetero-sexual, with occasional bouts of bi-curiosity that come out of the blue and go away just as suddenly. I know, or have heard, that men are hard-wired for passionate pursuit of women (or men I guess, if they're gay), but my wires must be pretty damn soft, since I absolutely cannot pursue a woman I find attractive.

I only recently (like 8 months ago) asked a woman I worked with if we could go out and have a drink together. It marked the first time I ever asked a woman out. She answered, "Sure!" Of course, I only had the guts to do it on Facebook. At work the following day, I waited for her to mention that this had occurred. Since she never mentioned it, I never mentioned it either, and we never went out for that drink.

I'd love to know what exactly is wrong with me, but at my age I really don't care; and besides, I've just found out that I have a heart problem, so sex would probably kill me now anyway.

Lastly, I find that nice friendships with women I admire are plenty satisfying for me. The rest is too much trouble.

And embarrassing.

 

[rousseau]

I find almost everything about sexual relationships embarrassing, and I tend to be most content to stay well within the friend zone.

If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her, because I find the very idea of trying to impress or attract her incredibly embarrassing.

If you're concertedly trying to impress someone, you've already lost.

Typically a relationship will either work, or not, the circumstances just have to be right when it can work. Usually both parties have a stable job, are single, have mutual chemistry and attraction, and want a relationship. If all of those pieces fall into play all you need to do is ask them to hang out, and it's a done deal.

The tricky part there is chemistry, a big component of which is your confidence. You can do a lot of dumb shit, but you have to be confident about it. Don't pay for their meal? Sure, why not? Just be confident in what you're doing. Outside of that I think there is also something of a 'genetically compatible' aspect of relationships. Some pairs just aren't meant to be.

But trying to impress someone? It doesn't work like that. Typically, you impress people by not trying to impress them. If you be yourself, and they find you to be an impressive person, all you have to do is show up. This makes things even easier because the people who are unimpressed automatically filter themselves out.

 

[WAB]

I find almost everything about sexual relationships embarrassing, and I tend to be most content to stay well within the friend zone.

If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her, because I find the very idea of trying to impress or attract her incredibly embarrassing.

If you're concertedly trying to impress someone, you've already lost.

I sure hope I didn't give the impression that I ever "concertedly tried to impress someone"? Actually I was clear to say the exact opposite: If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her... IOW: Quite deliberately NOT trying to impress her.

I reinforced this by saying that I found the "very idea" of trying to impress her embarrassing. I find myself frequently embarrassed for men, or women, who are blatantly obvious in their attempts to impress someone they are interested in.

Oooh, just noticed you mentioned confidence. I have absolutely no confidence in myself insofar as romance and intimacy are concerned. None, zero, nada. That's worked really well in keeping the ladies away.

 

[rousseau]

I find almost everything about sexual relationships embarrassing, and I tend to be most content to stay well within the friend zone.

If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her, because I find the very idea of trying to impress or attract her incredibly embarrassing.

If you're concertedly trying to impress someone, you've already lost.

I sure hope I didn't give the impression that I ever "concertedly tried to impress someone"? Actually I was clear to say the exact opposite: If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her... IOW: Quite deliberately NOT trying to impress her.

I reinforced this by saying that I found the "very idea" of trying to impress her embarrassing. I find myself frequently embarrassed for men, or women, who are blatantly obvious in their attempts to impress someone they are interested in.

Oooh, just noticed you mentioned confidence. I have absolutely no confidence in myself insofar as romance and intimacy are concerned. None, zero, nada. That's worked really well in keeping the ladies away.

The way you phrased it you made it sound like you thought it was a good idea, even though you were embarrassed. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

 

[Bronzeage]

I find almost everything about sexual relationships embarrassing, and I tend to be most content to stay well within the friend zone.

If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her, because I find the very idea of trying to impress or attract her incredibly embarrassing.

If you're concertedly trying to impress someone, you've already lost.

Typically a relationship will either work, or not, the circumstances just have to be right when it can work. Usually both parties have a stable job, are single, have mutual chemistry and attraction, and want a relationship. If all of those pieces fall into play all you need to do is ask them to hang out, and it's a done deal.

The tricky part there is chemistry, a big component of which is your confidence. You can do a lot of dumb shit, but you have to be confident about it. Don't pay for their meal? Sure, why not? Just be confident in what you're doing. Outside of that I think there is also something of a 'genetically compatible' aspect of relationships. Some pairs just aren't meant to be.

But trying to impress someone? It doesn't work like that. Typically, you impress people by not trying to impress them. If you be yourself, and they find you to be an impressive person, all you have to do is show up. This makes things even easier because the people who are unimpressed automatically filter themselves out.

Of course, and misspell words on a job application, just so you don't look too eager.

Can we think of any other desire which depends on the good will of another person, where we think it would be a good idea to deliberately not try to impress them?

This is the set up for a sit-com where the guy and the woman both go home and tell their room mate, "I think he/she is great, but he/she didn't notice me."

 

[rousseau]

I find almost everything about sexual relationships embarrassing, and I tend to be most content to stay well within the friend zone.

If I am attracted to a woman, I will automatically act nonchalant around her, because I find the very idea of trying to impress or attract her incredibly embarrassing.

If you're concertedly trying to impress someone, you've already lost.

Typically a relationship will either work, or not, the circumstances just have to be right when it can work. Usually both parties have a stable job, are single, have mutual chemistry and attraction, and want a relationship. If all of those pieces fall into play all you need to do is ask them to hang out, and it's a done deal.

The tricky part there is chemistry, a big component of which is your confidence. You can do a lot of dumb shit, but you have to be confident about it. Don't pay for their meal? Sure, why not? Just be confident in what you're doing. Outside of that I think there is also something of a 'genetically compatible' aspect of relationships. Some pairs just aren't meant to be.

But trying to impress someone? It doesn't work like that. Typically, you impress people by not trying to impress them. If you be yourself, and they find you to be an impressive person, all you have to do is show up. This makes things even easier because the people who are unimpressed automatically filter themselves out.

Of course, and misspell words on a job application, just so you don't look too eager.

Can we think of any other desire which depends on the good will of another person, where we think it would be a good idea to deliberately not try to impress them?

This is the set up for a sit-com where the guy and the woman both go home and tell their room mate, "I think he/she is great, but he/she didn't notice me."

Depends. Take something like Linkedin for example.

On many profiles those with the least amount of experience often say the most words. It's a strategy that might work some of the time, but usually it just implies that you're trying to cover up for your lack of experience and know how.

Where those with the most amount of experience can just say 'I've worked for these 5 companies for 15 years', so you know you can count on me. Words are unnecessary because their accomplishments speak for themselves.

Similarly, if you're in the dating game and have a middle-class salary, car, house, and are an emotionally adjusted person you don't need to buy roses and chocolates. Just show up, be a kind person, and keep showing up until you're making her breakfast. And so the most viable relationship strategy is being the type of person someone would want to be with, the second one would be persistence.

So I guess it's not so much 'don't try to impress', but rather 'impress with things that actually matter'.

 

[RavenSky]

I fail to see why this is so hard. If you value a woman's friendship, then you're not upset to be in the "friend zone."

That's a scant consolation when you really wanted something more. Especially when it happens over and over again.

Which exactly proves the point Brace was making.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's still better than being ignored by all women.

I don't ignore you, sweetcheeks!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Interesting thread. Here's something I didn't read in it:

Are we talking mere sex or are we talking marriage / committed long term relationship? It often pivots dramatically between genders depending on the answer.

Is this culture or biology at work? Both.

 

[Rhea]

It's still better than being ignored by all women.

I don't ignore you, sweetcheeks!

I think he means you’re not having sex with him, therefore your interactions are considered “ignoring _him_” since apparently paying attention to him means paying attention to his dick.

Many of us interact with Derec daily, but he continues to claim “all women ignore him.” Or maybe since he does not have access to our vaginas, we are not “women” in his universe.

 

[WAB]

It's still better than being ignored by all women.

I don't ignore you, sweetcheeks!

I'm jealous. You never call ME sweetcheeks!

 

[Rhea]

Men can be so needy