Friend Zone Quote

Honey Pumpkin · February 3, 2007

What about women who are already going out with someone (married etc) - what about the male friends they make?

I don't know, this all seems odd to me. I have a lot of male friends, have had all my life, and I value their friendship hugely. I don't really get all this friendzone stuff. And we're talking friendships of twenty years plus. I always feel really uncomfortable by the whole 'men and women can't be friends' etc. And this friendzoned stuff. It just doesn't fit with my life experience - maybe I'm weird though. It seems to treat people as commodities and gender, rather than value them as friends.

I would HATE to think that I had any friends who were secretly plotting to get me in the sack. It seems really underhand to me, and a bit gutless. If you have feelings for a girl, tell her. It's not rocket science - you may get let down, but I can tell you, ten years of friendship and then saying you love her is a wee bit...creepy? Like you're not valuing the friendship or something.

I don't know.

KileOriginal · February 3, 2007

I really don't think guys and girls can ever be just friends. At least not in the complete sense of the phrase "just friends."

Yeah I have a bunch of friends who are girls that I may hang out with and nothing sexual happens, but I know under the right circumstances I could just as easily let something happen.

Now the question is that do girl's really think about it differently. Three times now I have had long term friendships with girls suddenly get "complicated" , but then again in these friendships something happened or changed to alter the dynamics of the friendship.

In other instances, there were girls I really liked and made my intentions known, and despite all the powers in the world I could never awaken that part of them to be interested in me as more than just a friend. (in a few instances it seemed that they were initially interested in me, that something happened to put those ideas to an end.)

Now for me to be honest about my deep dark secret. There are girls that I am somewhat friends with whom I will never have sexual feelings towards. But these are girls that REALLY did something to turn me off, like there special cases. Not sure if that's the same case as with girls that are not interested in guys as anything but friends.

Maybe the question is, what is the process or realization that may change a guy from a potential dating partner into just friend material.

Also, I find the job comparison to be very apt for the purposes its being used for, but I won't argue that in this already long post.

CarnelianButterfly · February 3, 2007

It is not the responsibility of women to consider the emotions of every man that likes her. We are not obligated to return your affections nor want any other relationship than friendship.

I really don't think guys and girls can ever be just friends.

You say it is not possible for men and women to be friends, I say you're wrong. Its not possible for YOU to be friends with women, but there are many men in this world that don't feel every female that is nice to them is a possible date.

KileOriginal · February 3, 2007

CarnelianButterfly I think your missing the point of my post.

I really just want to discuss the mental processes that go on in a woman's head when she decides how to classify a guy she's met.

It's possible that you aren't aware of what thought processes you go through, and in that case I don't expect you to be able to discuss them, but I'm still curious.

Batya33 · February 3, 2007

Just because two people might have sexual attraction for each other does not mean that they can't be just friends. I have male platonic friends who are married or attached and pehaps at times there has been some chemistry but we've never acted on it and never would. On the other hand I was "just friends" with someone for a year and a half I never dreamed I would have chemistry with and one night, that all changed, dramatically. No one was more surprised than me.

CarnelianButterfly · February 3, 2007

CarnelianButterfly I think your missing the point of my post.

I really just want to discuss the mental processes that go on in a woman's head when she decides how to classify a guy she's met.

It's possible that you aren't aware of what thought processes you go through, and in that case I don't expect you to be able to discuss them, but I'm still curious.

I know very well what goes on in my head. I happen to resent men that feel they need to tear into a woman's personal workings because they don't like the fact they are not her choice as a significant other. Why does a woman need to justify each choice of man she comes accross? Why should it be explained? It is her personal and private choices that dictate how she feels. You do obviously do not fit some parameter of her ideals so you are relegated to the friend role. If you don't like it, move on, respect her choices.

You want a process:

Men that are friends but can't handle that position are pessimistic, they only see what the relationship for what it isn't. They don't see they have a good friend that does care for them, but not in the name of love. They don't respect the fact that someone considers them a friend.

KileOriginal · February 4, 2007

Do I sense an element of annoyance in your reply? Please know that I'm not discussing this because of any "situation" in my life, just because I felt the quote to be a very apt and humorous one.

Regardless:

So you mentioned optimism versus pessimism, and also chemistry.

Have you ever met a guy and even without having much or any interaction just felt strongly one way or the other for him?

CarnelianButterfly · February 4, 2007

Yep, and he acted like he wanted to date, then acted like I was only a friend. Then I acted like he didn't exist and moved on to other guys.

andyg · February 4, 2007

Read it, it's probably you kile.

KileOriginal · February 4, 2007

andyg said:

Read it, it's probably you kile.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

Two problems with your quote:

1) It's comparing a relationship to a job.

2) It's assuming that you have to have certain characteristics or qualifications to become romantically involved with someone. But chemistry isn't logical or mathematical. You can't quantify it and list it on a resume.

The fact is, you can have all the perfect "qualifications" and have absolutely zero chemistry. Deciding who to date is completely different from deciding who to hire.

I beg to differ.

In terms of the interviewer, chemistry is everything. If for some unknown reason the interviewer doesn't like the job applicant, or really gets some odd feeling about hiring him, then despite the qualificiations, he/she may decide not to hire the candidate.

Nepotism occurs lots of places to, in particularly the government, where 'knowing someone' gets you further than qualifications.

I'm a Real-Estate agent myself, and I can tell you that my qualifications and title mean nothing. It still boils down to connecting with people and having chemistry with clients, male or female, so you can work with them properly.

I define chemistry also in terms of trust. That type of trust is there or it isn't. If a client cant trust me for any reason, or prospect for that matter, then it's time to move on to another client, because a problem that's in the beginning will be a time-waster in the end, when more efficient time-investments are out there.

Jobs and relationships, particularly Real-Estate careers are almost perfectly analogous to relationships and dating, just that closing the deal is selling a home instead of sex or kissing or relationship or what have you.

If someone 'friendzones' you, than I'd look at her like a 'speculator client' who wants to buy something for nothing and waste my time looking at homes but going nowhere. That would be the best analogy for a friendzone scenerio.

So, relationships and jobs are the same thing.

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

KileOriginal,

I agree with what you are saying. Sometimes you feel 'special' as a friend and see some sort of challenge in some distance or qualified inavailablility - for example - most girls dont say they see you as a friend only - they'll make up excuses such as they dont have room or time in their life for a relationship, and give you a bait of hope that there could be 'something' when in reality there is nothing further than friendship. This is escarbated if you are not good with girls in the first place and one girl is giving you some attention and you tend to amplify a hundred-fold than what it should be normally.

In terms of other posters thinking that guys like us should appreciate friendship, I find the whole concept of friendship, unless it's a practical type of friendship to be difficult to understand. How can you be friends with someone who has rejected you? If you never had a serious/sexual relationship before or any sort of validation and wanted a relationship with a person that friendzoned you, I think that would be too difficult to bear.

CarnelianButterfly · February 5, 2007

You know I see a lot of blame being placed on the woman for the rejected feelings men that are friend zoned get. You think blaming her will make you more appealing?

And why is it so hard to accept that someone does not want you?

The world doesn't revolve around one person; they are not the only thing that is important.

You're analogy mentions that the man who "gets the job" is an alcoholic or whatever; do you really feel that is valid?

Derge · February 5, 2007

Give the guy a break he just wants to know why girls date jerks its mainly due to reputation, I can prove this as its a fact that a Mans more popular with women who have never met him before. its happened to me probably becase they havent friendzoned them yet.

Well its not technically proof and anyhow all the girls ive been regected by are no hopers and many of them are pretty thick, I know when im travelling the world with a comfortable job that they will be in the same village with there 25 year old benefit scrougers that im paying for and if there lucky ill give then a 50 pence tip when i buy a pint in the pub.

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

You know I see a lot of blame being placed on the woman for the rejected feelings men that are friend zoned get. You think blaming her will make you more appealing?

In fact, based on the Ladder Theory, that weblink I quoted on the above post, and based on folk and pop psychology, it's a generally held belief that first impressions are basically everything. Once a woman has decided on the first few interactions to friendzone someone, than that's a final decision and that's right blaming her wont make anyone more appealing, but neither is anything else that could be done for that matter without expending time and energy into a prythic (sp?) victory.

I'm not sure if this theory is true or not since I'm a male and dont have the foggiest idea of how most women think on here, perhaps you can confirm the ladders theory or debunk it, but be my guest to comment on it since you seem to take issue on this discussion.

The reason for frustration, as you put it, is due to the false expectations which arise from guys that are put in the 'friends only' ladder but think they are in the 'good' ladder, or there is a disequilibrium of 'ladders' (i.e. she's at the top of his ladder, but he's on her friends only ladder in some rung).

And why is it so hard to accept that someone does not want you?

Because all guys that are attracted to women want to have sex with them.

unless:

1) they are gay;

2) they are not attracted to her;

3) they have someone on a higher rung ladder than her.

Guys generally dont waste time with women they are not attracted to.

Typically, they will feel there is a chance for sex down the line or a chance of 'something' down the line via friendship, leading to inevitable frustration.

The world doesn't revolve around one person; they are not the only thing that is important.

You're analogy mentions that the man who "gets the job" is an alcoholic or whatever; do you really feel that is valid?

I leave the rest for the OP to reply to this.

But, that's right, if a woman sees you only as a friend - the typical response is to:

1) Blank her out, move on.

2) Meet new women.

3) Date new women.

4) Come back to her later once you've actually found a girlfriend.

lifestream · February 5, 2007

I don't think that's always true.

I've put girls into friend zone a few times. They were nice but the attraction simply wasn't there. If something was there then that's different. And it really doesn't take TOO much. Just a change in attitude, really. Instead of being shy, be more engaging. That kind of thing.

With my ex we were both in friend zone for a year. We were friends but we liked each other, but we both slotted each other in friend category yet remained interested. She kept saying she didn't want to ruin the friendship but still flirt. Eventually I took the bull by the horns and we started dating.

There can still be a lot of chemistry between friends. It's just choosing to take the next step that can bother some people.

Juha · February 5, 2007

Women don't think, women are emotional creatures and they act on their emotions...Asking a woman to tell you what they are thinking when wanting or liking a guy is nearly impossible...

Men are thinkers...

CarnelianButterfly · February 5, 2007

Women don't think, women are emotional creatures and they act on their emotions...Asking a woman to tell you what they are thinking when wanting or liking a guy is nearly impossible...

Men are thinkers...

I suppose not thinking is how I got my degree in engineering.

Right now I'm thinking there are a lot of men that are trying to make it seem like their feelings getting hurt is due to evil women and their impossible ways.

I can tell you exactly how I feel about every man I know, I don't think it's of interest to go thru the whole list but the guys that will never make it past friend...

Guy 1
I like his mind and he's fun to be around most of the time; however he is immature and has no sense of when things have been taken too far. He is an adult, but has the functionality of a teenage boy.

[*]Guy 2:

Sweet, different, lots of common interests, he is however small minded and has made comments that I found to be very much in conflict with things I hold important.

[*]Guy 3:

Charming, sweet, easy conversations about every thing, but he drinks WAY too much.

[*]Guy 4:

Likes different activities I like, flirty, above avg intelligence, but he has no creativity, I'm an artist.

Things not on my list: money or looks. I could care less about either. I don't need any one else's money, I'm perfectly capable of supporting myself. And looks, they are fleeting, he maybe cute today, but what will there be if he has an accident tomorrow and is disfigured.

CarnelianButterfly · February 5, 2007

Typically, they will feel there is a chance for sex down the line or a chance of 'something' down the line via friendship, leading to inevitable frustration.

So you support the exploitation of another’s feelings for the purpose of sex?

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

I don't think that's always true.
I've put girls into friend zone a few times.

What is not always true? Are you saying there are always exceptions to a rule, in particular if the rule is based on pop or folk psychology.

The funny thing is there is no official sociological studies and I'm suprized all this stuff hasn't caught the eye of the scientific community making it into a sort of junk science.

They were nice but the attraction simply wasn't there. If something was there then that's different. And it really doesn't take TOO much. Just a change in attitude, really. Instead of being shy, be more engaging. That kind of thing.

Based on the Ladder theory - a guy would have sex with a woman or not have two separate ladders. In your case, the Ladder theory would suggest you have another woman in your life that's HIGHER in the rung than she is, and thereforeeee you allowed yourself to be friends with her. In cases of desperation, where you didn't have anyone HIGHER in the run than her, then you would settle to do her if she was sexually available.

I mean, she's a woman, so she's doable right unless she's really fat and ugly.

With my ex we were both in friend zone for a year. We were friends but we liked each other, but we both slotted each other in friend category yet remained interested. She kept saying she didn't want to ruin the friendship but still flirt. Eventually I took the bull by the horns and we started dating.

Sure, but you already slept with her and had a relationship with her before so that doesn't count. Once you've closed the deal, then it's irrelevant for purposes of friendzone discussion.

The concept of friendzone is you cant kiss, have sex, or be sexual because a woman has you BLOCKED for some reason, but wants to use you to stimulate her mind turning the guy who is being friend-blocked into an intellectual slave for the woman, while she has it in mind to do other people who may not have intellectual qualities and compartmentalise people to fulfill her selfish needs, at the expense of stringing people along.

There can still be a lot of chemistry between friends. It's just choosing to take the next step that can bother some people.

Right, again, the ladder theory says, that a woman chooses just after meeting a guy if they are on the GOOD ladder or the FRIENDS ONLY ladder. You can be very intimate on the FRIENDS ONLY ladder, cuddle her, and listening to her intimate secrets, but you'll find out that you cant go further than that sexually, and it's someone else that closes the deal.

Again you are being used as she is compartmentalising her needs again with different guys.

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

Women don't think, women are emotional creatures and they act on their emotions...Asking a woman to tell you what they are thinking when wanting or liking a guy is nearly impossible...

Men are thinkers...

Preach it brother.

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

So you support the exploitation of another’s feelings for the purpose of sex?

No I do not. I support Buyer's Beware and think people should have their head on.

Luke Skywalker · February 5, 2007

I things not on my list: money or looks. I could care less about either. I don't need any one else's money, I'm perfectly capable of supporting myself. And looks, they are fleeting, he maybe cute today, but what will there be if he has an accident tomorrow and is disfigured.

Just for argument sake (not to offend) I'd like to bring up the following:

10 % of attraction on that pie shart is based on things women say they like, but they really dont. Let's deal with the other %'s here.

She says money doesn't matter - but the pie chart actually links 50% of attraction to be money or power -- or what is known as the 'alpha male'. Thus, she may be attracted to an 'Outlaw Biker' who is broke, but due to the sense of 'power' and masculinity, may be turned on by him anyway. The other idea is women like things that are rare. If every guy was equally rich or powerful, then that whole chart would have to be reconfigured. It is due to the fact that the 'alpha' male, money/power guy is a rarety that they occuply a large (50%) part of the pie chart.

Is she attracted to a weak girly guy that has a poor posture? No, she would probably friendzone him. Why? 50% is a big number.

Let's look at the other 40%. Looks vs. comparison. A guy that she likes has to present a novelty to her (1/3 of the 40% pie chart), be someone that her friends are likely to want or have some reputation behind him (1/3 of the 40% pie chart), and of course, look really good (another 1/3 of the 40% pie chart).

Thus, 90% is looks, (power or money), and 10% is the intellectual part - which are often exploited from the woman's friend-zone victims because they are sadly lacking with the alpha guys that she already had her thrill and fill with.

I'd like to see if Carnelianbutterfly, or any woman on here, has a rebuttal for this -- has she had a boyfriend, had sex with, or dated a guy that is counter-intuitive to this whole theory - a weak, girly guy that looks average and is unemployed - and didn't just see him as 'friends only'.

CarnelianButterfly · February 5, 2007

Luke, there are a lot of people in this world that are NOT driven by sex. Their sole purpose in life is not to screw every thing in sight.

And you're little ladder stuff has no consideration for character.

10 % of attraction on that pie shart is based on things women say they like, but they really dont.

And who wrote this? A man? And how does a man have any clue as to what women think. If you think people are pie charts, you have a lot to learn. Every person doesn't fit into nice neat little boxes with perfect little borders. You can't quantify human emotion, any one who thinks that they can numerically estimate the feelings and degrees, and have it applicable to every one, is completely deluded. The world doesn't work that way, attraction isn't a percentage, how does it add up? What's the units of measure? How is it not just a subjective assignation?

I'd like to see if Carnelianbutterfly, or any woman on here, has a rebuttal for this -- has she had a boyfriend, had sex with, or dated a guy that is counter-intuitive to this whole theory - a weak, girly guy that looks average and is unemployed - and didn't just see him as 'friends only'.

My boyfriend-no job, no huge store of money. He has personality, wit, intelligence, consideration, character, values, and creativity. He doesn't pull the "alpha male" crapola, he's genuine and what you say is weak, isn’t, its called human. Being true to yourself isn’t weak, it isn’t “beta”, its more fulfilling of a life. You don’t live on pretext and some trumped up play acting role of a person. You’re so called alpha males are sad little boys that thump their chest and hope someone notices.

RayKay · February 5, 2007

I'd like to see if Carnelianbutterfly, or any woman on here, has a rebuttal for this -- has she had a boyfriend, had sex with, or dated a guy that is counter-intuitive to this whole theory - a weak, girly guy that looks average and is unemployed - and didn't just see him as 'friends only'.

One of my ex's - last one actually - was unemployed when I met him, and kinda funny looking - he had a huge head and not "attractive" by the usual standards, but I was attracted to him for so many reasons.

My late boyfriend, whom was before my ex, I was with 5 years before he died. To me he was the sexiest man alive, to others he was short, "round", balding, and so on...I was with him when he was sick and weakened and I still was in love and attracted to him. By the way, in that case we were friends first due to circumstance (we were in army, and there were policies!) and started dating later, but the attraction was always there.

On the other hand, I have flat out just NOT been attracted to people whom looked like GQ models and had powerful jobs.

Whatever the stats say, or the Ladder says, there is FAR more to attraction than income and some "social standard" for appearance.

Carnelian is right, people, and their needs and wants in a partner cannot be deduced to statistical data, or the "Ladder theory" which seems to br written by someone to justify an expression of anger towards women. We are all different. It does not matter how many charts you refer to as "proving" what women want, as it is has no reference to what *I* want.

And believe it or not; "feeling" does not preclude us also being capable of *thinking*.

Sign In

Friend Zone Quote

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Top Discussions this Week

Top Articles