| Forum Index > General Forum |
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on. Posts of the following nature are banned: 1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post. 2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no. 3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture. 4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments. Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. | ||
|
bloodwhore~
1010 Posts
If you're a guy who is interested in a girl, make a move or don't. If you get rejected and still stick around, then that is on you. You can't fault the girl for putting you in the "friend zone". It's just massively manipulative to use that word most of the times to be honest. This video is pretty accurate to me. Plus the song has a nice beat. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
I feel like most peoples misguided reactions when it comes to dating and especially their lack of success in it stems from being dishonest with yourself to save face. Another fundamental flaw of the friendzone concept is that most of the time it shows off how men still see it like women don’t want any partner on their own and need to be convinced and conquered. It seems like a concept most present with men who never had the pleasant experience of getting chased by a women they would see as worthy to pursue themselves. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
Asuming you are "friendzoned" by someone you don't know well or are dating is a different matter! | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On September 22 2018 21:20 Slydie wrote: I think it is wrong to say the friendzone does not exist. Face to face conversations deciding that a relation is not romantic/sexual are not that uncommon, and if you are actually friends, they don't even have to be that awkward! Asuming you are "friendzoned" by someone you don't know well or are dating is a different matter! It does exists and is called being friends. Unless of course, since I am heterosexual, we now agree that all my male friends are automatically in the friendzone. I don't see any other use for the term "friendzone" other than framing it in a way where you can say "he/she put me in the friendzone" as in "despite all of my qualities, he/she arbitrarly decided that she is not interested". There are a few individuals that can get a weird tunnelvision in terms of emotion where something like a friendzone indeed exists, but for most people its simply they are not interesting in you. You are good enough of a company to hang out with but not good enough to consider as a partner. This can be hurtful but thats how it is. EDIT: It also propably stems a bit from the whole "no but lets be friends" which btw most of the time doesnt mean "lets be friends" but rather "I am not interested in you in any way but dont want to be direct about it" | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On September 22 2018 21:40 waffelz wrote: It does exists and is called being friends. Unless of course, since I am heterosexual, we now agree that all my male friends are automatically in the friendzone. I don't see any other use for the term "friendzone" other than framing it in a way where you can say "he/she put me in the friendzone" as in "despite all of my qualities, he/she arbitrarly decided that she is not interested". There are a few individuals that can get a weird tunnelvision in terms of emotion where something like a friendzone indeed exists, but for most people its simply they are not interesting in you. You are good enough of a company to hang out with but not good enough to consider as a partner. This can be hurtful but thats how it is. EDIT: It also propably stems a bit from the whole "no but lets be friends" which btw most of the time doesnt mean "lets be friends" but rather "I am not interested in you in any way but dont want to be direct about it" Many prefer getting to know people in a non romantic "friendly" way before starting a relationship.I mentioned those conversations because they tend to take place when there could be doubt, and no, they are not always about dismissing somebody completely! Anyway, the Scandinavian way is typically to have sex or make out first and go on proper dates afterwards to avoid the whole issue... | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On September 22 2018 23:44 Slydie wrote: Many prefer getting to know people in a non romantic "friendly" way before starting a relationship.I mentioned those conversations because they tend to take place when there could be doubt, and no, they are not always about dismissing somebody completely! Anyway, the Scandinavian way is typically to have sex or make out first and go on proper dates afterwards to avoid the whole issue... I get what you are saying now. I still dont see the use of this term "friendzone" having a real use in most cases. Also what I said doesn't exclude the case you mentionend, but rather exactly encompasses it. Doesnt really matter if the intention initially was to maybe get with you, if you are either concious or unconciously not deemed datingmaterial, at least in my opinion. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Where this all becomes misguided and quickly associated with PUA-style fuckery is when the reality of not being interested in dating every person one is fond of is framed in terms of this "you are friend zoned because you're a beta, whereas if you were an alpha she would want to have sex with you" idiocy. I'm sure that some women behave this way, but it's certainly not the case for any of the women that I've ever been interested in. Attraction may to some extent be something that is beyond your control, but in no way is it defined by this silliness. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On September 23 2018 01:55 LegalLord wrote: The "friend zone" is definitely real, in the sense of being fond of someone as a friend but not being interested in dating them. That can hold regardless of physical attraction or a lack thereof. And it goes both ways - women can be "friend zoned" just the same. And feelings can change over time. Where this all becomes misguided and quickly associated with PUA-style fuckery is when the reality of not being interested in dating every person one is fond of is framed in terms of this "you are friend zoned because you're a beta, whereas if you were an alpha she would want to have sex with you" idiocy. I'm sure that some women behave this way, but it's certainly not the case for any of the women that I've ever been interested in. Attraction may to some extent be something that is beyond your control, but in no way is it defined by this silliness. Yes. I agree that's pretty stupid. There are lots of reasons a woman might not want to have sex with you beyond that. Clash of personalities. Age differences. Attractiveness. Personal Interests. Etc. The only thing I would say, is that in general if you: possess inner confidence, are a leader, are masculine, non-needy around women, comfortable with physical touch/sexual conversation with women, and are socially calibrated you will generally attract a lot of women to you. Incidentally, those traits are what "alpha" means to me. I could be wrong, but I think it's the rare woman that doesn't find that set of traits to be attractive in a man. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
I'm pretty sure this is a guideline accepted post here because the context is relationship advice that more or less boils down to "what should you do in the case of rejection where you are told "Let's just be friend's". ------------------- He starts off by saying:
Another point to be clear on is that his article is talking about friendzone, i.e. the condition where you have made a move on the woman and she has rejected you saying something like "Let's be friends". It does not apply to female friends you haven't made a move on or who haven't rejected you. He makes several argument points:
Number 2 there is garbage. Number 1, not the greatest argument of all time, but at the same time it's a valid logical point in so far as I can tell. If you have the option to ride Roller Coaster A, which skins up your knee everytime, or Roller Coaster B, the same coaster but modified to not hurt you...I can't see a rationale reason to ride A. Number 3 is the key point. Are any of you really going to tell me it's a good feeling to be rejected by a woman? To watch a girl you like date another man? Does it make you feel strong and masculine to be rejected and reminded of that? Of course not. So there are negative emotions related to her now. So in my book, our author has now made on shit point, and two decent points. He then goes to the rather extreme conclusion of: "Cut all women out that have rejected to you.". I believe he has laid out a rational, reasoned case for why this options makes sense. For more minor cases where the rejection was minor (i.e. you weren't deeply head over heels for the girl thinking she was your soulmate, but rather mildly attracted) I think an equally valid second option would be "Yes, Girl A rejected me and I get some negative emotions from that, but spending time with her doing X is still really fuckin fun, and outweighs the small negative emotions I get". -------------------------- After reading that, do you really feel any of those points (except the one I mentioned) are that shitty and scum-baggy. If so, why? Trying to learn here and rather baffled by the intensity of some of the negative responses. Unfortunately, most of the responses have also not criticized the above points the author was making, but been emotion responses like: "That guy was bonkers" or "That was the stupidest piece of shit I've ever read". That's not conductive to any of us for learning, understanding better, or expanding and complicating our understanding of the world. | ||
|
bloodwhore~
1010 Posts
On September 23 2018 04:47 L_Master wrote: That's not conductive to any of us for learning, understanding better, or expanding and complicating our understanding of the world. I'm not going to bother with an article that begins with this. I have said before that being in platonic friend zone with a woman you want to have sex with is one of the worst places for you to be. It damages your self esteem and outcome independence. It increases your scarcity mentality, neediness, and sexual frustration. It’s a great deal for her, since she gets all the validation she craves from you. It’s a horrible deal for you, since you don’t get any sex, which is what you crave from her, whether you admit that about yourself or not. True, you get friendship, but you can get that from men and/or ugly or too-old women you have no desire to have sex with, and thus experience none of the above problems. Or Really? Are you 100% sure about that, Darling? If I invisibly followed you around with a clipboard and tracked the exact number of times your friend zone orbiter bought you food or drinks and you never paid him back, do you really, honestly think it would be zero? Really? We both know the real answer. He could have gotten his points across without writing like a prepubescent boy who thinks everything is unfair. I agree that if you ONLY want sex from a girl there is no point being her friend. I haven't kept any of the girls I've dated as friends whom I wanted a romantic relationship with. I do not agree that it cannot be done. But the whole idea that a girl would want a male friend is just because she is craving attention and is actively using the guy only for her own benefit is absurd and screams insecurity. No need to project his own feelings on other men. He genuinely likes you for your awesome personality. It’s not your awesome rack or fantastic smile that interests him, it’s just you. Your relationship with your guy best friend has an inherent level of depth because it has nothing to do with physical attraction or appearance. He genuinely loves you because of your character. I assuming he thinks this because nobody has liked him for his personality. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On September 23 2018 06:12 bloodwhore~ wrote: I'm not going to bother with an article that begins with this. Or He could have gotten his points across without writing like a prepubescent boy who thinks everything is unfair. I agree that if you ONLY want sex from a girl there is no point being her friend. I haven't kept any of the girls I've dated as friends whom I wanted a romantic relationship with. I do not agree that it cannot be done. But the whole idea that a girl would want a male friend is just because she is craving attention and is actively using the guy only for her own benefit is absurd and screams insecurity. No need to project his own feelings on other men. I assuming he thinks this because nobody has liked him for his personality. He's marketing for an audience. This is a business for him. I think he is trying to do two things: 1) Hammer these aggressive assertions to break down guys that are really bad about this in an unhealthy way. There are a TON of women that do string men along in the manner he described like that last quote. Some of them are ignorant of doing that, others do it intentionally. He's being aggressive in attempt to get both men and women to recognize this goes on. 2) Sell his books. He's using those terms and language and talk to see to a specific crowd. Writing the way he does is cool and accepted for his niche. 3) It really surprises me that you think he is writing like he thinks these things are unfair. To me, he is writing like a guy that gets that the world works this way often and doesn't give a shit. He gets it. Accepts it. Moves on. Nowhere is he judging women. I have said before that being in platonic friend zone with a woman you want to have sex with is one of the worst places for you to be. It damages your self esteem and outcome independence. It increases your scarcity mentality, neediness, and sexual frustration. It’s a great deal for her, since she gets all the validation she craves from you. It’s a horrible deal for you, since you don’t get any sex, which is what you crave from her, whether you admit that about yourself or not. True, you get friendship, but you can get that from men and/or ugly or too-old women you have no desire to have sex with, and thus experience none of the above problems. The bolded part is pretty true. If you get rejected by a girl and subsequently friendzoned, are you really suggesting that doesn't hurt your self esteem a little? That you won't be a little sexually frustrated knowing you can't have the girl of your dreams? Etc. And it is an excellent thing for the woman, because she gets a great friend out of you who is now even more willing to be a good guy for her and impress her or win her back. Lot's of guys act exactly that way. He genuinely likes you for your awesome personality. It’s not your awesome rack or fantastic smile that interests him, it’s just you. Your relationship with your guy best friend has an inherent level of depth because it has nothing to do with physical attraction or appearance. He genuinely loves you because of your character. I get that this is material that reads cringy AF. Especially when he makes it sound like a universal truism. That level of hyperbole is obviously ridiculous. At the same time, I think back to all my friends who have ever been very close, deep guy/girl friends. In a huge number of these, the guy was attracted to her; she was not attracted to him. I have no doubt that all of these guys really did like that girl for many things besides her looks, but a BIG part of the reason they were there is because they were attracted to her. They continued to stay as best friends because they hoped she would eventually grow to love them as they loved her. ALL factors played a role, but these guys wanted a romantic relationship. This is something you don't ever have without sexual interest, which requires physical attraction. In this case, he is also writing strongly to try and get women to realize that many times good, close guy best friends are in part there because they are attracted you, which gives you alot of power over them. I think his overly-dramatic writing style is a miss here, but if you think about what his goal is here (get women to realize that many of their close guy friends are likely attracted to them, which gives them alot of power) it's easier to understand why he is writing that way. You can dislike him being a "fire and brimstone" guy to get these points across, Again though, if you don't want to read the links, I have distilled the core points of the articles above. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
But if you genuinely click with a person and just cause she won't spread her legs for you give her the boot as a person, from my perspective, you either have enough friends or are a bit weird to ignore the person just due to superficial sexual attraction. | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10651 Posts
For lack of a better word, being friend zoned is not a bad thing. I’ve ended up being the best of friends with girls I initially wanted to be in a relationship with. Just cause it doesn’t go the way you expected doesn’t mean you guys still can’t have a legitimate friendship. What’s sucky is not being able to stay friends with a girl u initially liked cause u creeped too hard and pushed too hard when u shouldn’t have. And now it’s just always awkward when u see each other. I can say I’m guilty of this in the past but learned from it. This is 100% on the guys fault and they just excuse it as being “friend zoned” to rationalize their poor behavior. I don’t know what I’m saying anymore lol. But kudos if u follow my drift. Edit: this post doesn’t pertain to anyone in particular. I’m just speaking in general to the thread  | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On September 23 2018 07:01 Artisreal wrote: If you're willing to spend time with someone to just get in their pants I can follow the argument that you shouldn't be doing that if they're not gonna allow that. But if you genuinely click with a person and just cause she won't spread her legs for you give her the boot as a person, from my perspective, you either have enough friends or are a bit weird to ignore the person just due to superficial sexual attraction. I'd say I generally agree with this. For me it would depend on how good the friendship was compared to how bad the rejection hurt. If it was a rejection from someone who I was head over heels crazy in love with and attracted to I think I'd be out of there. It would just hurt too much, especially if I had to watch her start dating another guy or similar. If I wasn't especially attracted to her, but we had a good friendship prior, I probably wouldn't end that friendship. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11400 Posts
On September 23 2018 07:07 Emnjay808 wrote: A lot of people, judging by the length of ur posts, got complexities about friendzoning lol. For lack of a better word, being friend zoned is not a bad thing. I’ve ended up being the best of friends with girls I initially wanted to be in a relationship with. Just cause it doesn’t go the way you expected doesn’t mean you guys still can’t have a legitimate friendship. What’s sucky is not being able to stay friends with a girl u initially liked cause u creeped too hard and pushed too hard when u shouldn’t have. And now it’s just always awkward when u see each other. I can say I’m guilty of this in the past but learned from it. This is 100% on the guys fault and they just excuse it as being “friend zoned” to rationalize their poor behavior. I don’t know what I’m saying anymore lol. But kudos if u follow my drift. Edit: this post doesn’t pertain to anyone in particular. I’m just speaking in general to the thread True. If the attraction is not purely physical, but at least partially of the sort of "She is fun to be around", just because the relationship doesn't turn out to be a romantic one doesn't mean that it can't be a good friendship. Live is not only about sex. And if you see women as someone whose main attraction is that you can have sex with them, you are missing out. Even a good romantic relationship consists of at least 90% non-sex things. And you can have a lot of different, very good and fun friendly relationships. All of the things that are fun with male friends can also be done with female friends. Because most of the stuff you do has nothing to do with gender at all. Sex is not the only thing in life, and in my opinion by far not the most important. Sure, it's fun. But it is not so important to focus my whole life on nothing but sex. That is the main problem i always have with that kind of discussion. It is so solely focused on sex as the only defining thing in life, and everything else is seen only through its relation to sex. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The types of women who act in the manner in question do exist - those are generally the kinds of women who thrive on attention and are willing to string a number of guys along in order to get that attention. It takes some rather obtuse cynicism to try to characterize most or all women that way. And the kind of attitude that courting such women encourages is the same kind of attitude that will cause most more genuine women to want to have nothing to do with you. That probably makes it easier to reinforce a jaded attitude towards all women because you have self-selected the exact kinds of emotionally damaged women who work that way. This all reminds me of a friend I had who, at 18-20 or so, was so desperate to have sex that he picked up this whole PUA-style approach, and spent those years pursuing all these things as advocated by the blogs similar to this one. Met and pursued all sorts of the same drama queens that were discussed above, with fairly cringeworthy results, until he finally realized something that should have been apparent from the start: that all these hard-and-fast rules are generally just a load of bollocks, that people who adhere to them are largely just trying to rationalize their own insecurities, and that being genuine and focusing on more organic interactions actually gets real results (albeit not quickly). If you're able to get over your own insecurities it becomes quite easy to see these PUA blogs for the crock of shit that they indeed are. It's true that it takes some people a while to do that, though. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
It's a short-term-ism that comes coupled with a jaded attitude towards women and towards long-term relationships, always implying that women are inevitably just going to use and divorce you so you should always be sufficiently non-committal enough to avoid this. That's a little too strong for me. It's not always women, and it's always going to happen. It's not like long term relationships can't work. Statistically though, most marriages will end in divorce. Two thirds it the most common number of cities/urban areas across most western nations. Statistically, 82% of the time, it's the woman who initiates the divorce. Stats are not jaded. Nor am I, or the author of the blog I linked, advocating avoiding long term relationships or commitments. In fact the main focus of his blog is on managing relationships. He occasionally talks "getting women", but it's more heavily a relationships managements blog (in a non-monogamous context) than anything with other random things thrown in. In any event, it's way to strong and way to jaded to say "women are just going to use and divorce you". I've never seen that blogger, nor have I said anything remotely close to that; to be explicitly clear. I would also disagree, strongly, with the attitude that you should be non-committal. A degree of working to make the relationship a success can clearly benefit both of you. If however, after a decent amount of work, you find that you're still generally unhappy, that's the time to consider whether this is a good relationship. In general, I don't think being hyper non-committal and ending a relationship the moment she doesn't give you an enthusiastic "hey how was your day" for the first time is a good option. Conversely, I think the general attitude in America (perhaps Western Society in general) is more concerned with making the relationship work than they are with happiness, which is the true end goal of the relationship. You should both be happier people as a result of that relationship. I will continue to say, until such time as evidence/logic comes up to challenge either point that one should generally avoid both marriage and monogamy. Committed, long term relationships are excellent things. They do not need either marriage nor monogamy to be wonderful sources of happiness and fulfillment for both people. This all reminds me of a friend I had who, at 18-20 or so, was so desperate to have sex that he picked up this whole PUA-style approach, and spent those years pursuing all these things as advocated by the blogs similar to this one. Met and pursued all sorts of the same drama queens that were discussed above, with fairly cringeworthy results, until he finally realized something that should have been apparent from the start: that all these hard-and-fast rules are generally just a load of bollocks, that people who adhere to them are largely just trying to rationalize their own insecurities, and that being genuine and focusing on more organic interactions actually gets real results (albeit not quickly). If you're able to get over your own insecurities it becomes quite easy to see these PUA blogs for the crock of shit that they indeed are. It's true that it takes some people a while to do that, though. TBH, I don't really know what PUA promotes. If it's anything like "say X to get the girl" then yea that sounds like a load of nonsense. Back in the day like 10 years ago when I first heard of it I remember it being all a bunch of like memorizing canned routines, "negging" girls, and all kinds of very formulaic stuff. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 23 2018 09:07 L_Master wrote: LegalLord, not that I disagree with most of what you wrote, but how did we get on the topic of hooking up? I'm not sure how hooking up relates to the relationship question of how best to handle a woman who rejected you with a "let's just be friends response". It's what fairly immediately follows from a "sex or I don't want to have anything to do with you" absolutist approach to this matter. What happens afterward is almost incidental when you frame anything and everything like that. On September 23 2018 09:07 L_Master wrote: TBH, I don't really know what PUA promotes. If it's anything like "say X to get the girl" then yea that sounds like a load of nonsense. Back in the day like 10 years ago when I first heard of it I remember it being all a bunch of like memorizing canned routines, "negging" girls, and all kinds of very formulaic stuff. Same game, different terminology. Call it what you like, it's all a pseudo-logical framework to try to explain away the intricacies of human interactions and to distill them down to a set of stringent "rules" that hardly apply to a world where the exceptions often matter far more than the rules and where you really can't accurately paint people with broad strokes. All this seems like a carbon copy of the old "ladder theory" rationalizations, with hardly any difference of note. But hey! You seem convinced as it is of the correctness of the cynical view, so I think that's all there is to it. This entire approach is borne of that previously held attitude so everything else is just the natural result of that. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
Take it to PMs. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On September 23 2018 11:43 LegalLord wrote: It's what fairly immediately follows from a "sex or I don't want to have anything to do with you" absolutist approach to this matter. What happens afterward is almost incidental when you frame anything and everything like that. Interesting thought. Thanks. I'll have to chew on this one. MTA: Removed middle part pertaining to PUA. On September 23 2018 11:43 LegalLord wrote: But hey! You seem convinced as it is of the correctness of the cynical view, so I think that's all there is to it. This entire approach is borne of that previously held attitude so everything else is just the natural result of that. Depends on what you mean by cynical view. If cynical view means: "An awareness of the fact that most marriages are likely to fail and if you promise monogamy there is a very high probably you, her, or both of you will cheat". --- Then yes I am somewhat convinced of the cynical view and for good reason as all the statistics support this view. If cynical view means: " It's a short-term-ism that comes coupled with a jaded attitude towards women and towards long-term relationships, always implying that women are inevitably just going to use and divorce you so you should always be sufficiently non-committal enough to avoid this." --- This is something I disagree with strongly. Almost to the point of wanting to label it nonsense. Women are not "using and divorcing" men. There is no jadedness towards women from me. Just an understanding that human biology isn't very well designed for long term monogamy. There is also no jadedness towards long term relationships. I have absolutely no objection to long term, non-monogamous relationships, and I believe you can have committed versions of these that last 20, 30, 40, 50+ years. | ||
| ||
PiG Sty Festival
PiGFest Playoffs Day 2
MaNa vs BunnyLIVE!
herO vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Horang2 Dota 2 4635Jaedong  2850BeSt 649Pusan 610actioN 486Mini 304Hyun 206Light  174Last 173PianO 139[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns14487 singsing2151 B2W.Neo870 XBOCT474 DeMusliM422 Beastyqt380 Happy338 crisheroes135 ZerO(Twitch)14 trigger2 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Hatchery Cup
PassionCraft
Circuito Brasileiro de…
BSL Season 20
JDConan vs KameZerg
StRyKeR vs ZeTy
SOOP Duel Series
SOOP Global
ByuN vs herO
SHIN vs Cure
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
Circuito Brasileiro de…
BSL Season 20
Hawk vs perroflaco
Dienmax vs Jumper
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
