Does the friend-zone exist?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I have two problems with this statement.

First, the more socially adept in the relationship is more likely to have a realistic notion of their friend's feelings. This is usually the "zoner," not the "zonee."

Second, you're assigning a masculine gender to the zonee and a feminine gender to the zoner. The same gorram situation happens oft enough the other way around. Or in same-sex friendships. It's just that there's no legion of angry men calling women losers for falling for that routine; and in either of the heterosexual versions of the friend zone, the man is usually blamed, whether he's the zoner or the zonee.

We have a phrase for "friend-zoned": It's called unrequited love.

You do not put Niceness™ coins into the machine and a Sex™ falls out. We're talking about people here. We also have multiple phrases for what you're talking about: stringing along, carrying a torch for, etc. None of which are as fucking creepy as the idea that someone else owes you sex.

No one owes you sex. Ever. No exceptions.

Except in Vegas.

[Freelanderness]

We have a phrase for "friend-zoned": It's called unrequited love.

You do not put Niceness™ coins into the machine and a Sex™ falls out. We're talking about people here. We also have multiple phrases for what you're talking about: stringing along, carrying a torch for, etc. None of which are as fucking creepy as the idea that someone else owes you sex.

No one owes you sex. Ever. No exceptions.

Except in Vegas.

No exceptions.

[Tahar Joblis]

We have a phrase for "friend-zoned": It's called unrequited love.

And when a woman suffers from it, it's "tragic," but when a man suffers from it, it's "creepy."

You do not put Niceness™ coins into the machine and a Sex™ falls out.

And very few of the people in the "friend zone" believe that. That view is a strawman caricature that primarily exists in the minds of those attacking it.

Mind you, I've met people who felt entitled to sex and threw an angry fit about the opposite sex failing to act like a sex vending machine when they expected it, but most have been women. "Hell hath no fury" and all the bells on.

We're talking about people here.

Yes, real people with real relationships and real unhappiness; whose unhappiness you are trivializing and about whose relationships you are generalizing highly inappropriately.

We also have multiple phrases for what you're talking about: stringing along, carrying a torch for, etc.

And strangely, it's when a phrase is used mostly to apply to men that people suddenly start calling it creepy.

None of which are as fucking creepy as the idea that someone else owes you sex.

[/quote]
Again, this is not characteristic of the friend zone. Knock off the ideological bullshit.

[Tahar Joblis]

Except in Vegas.

No exceptions.

If you think sex cannot be explicitly sold as a service without engaging in wrongdoing, you are, in actual fact, ideologically sex-negative.

[Freelanderness]

If you think sex cannot be explicitly sold as a service without engaging in wrongdoing, you are, in actual fact, ideologically sex-negative.

Giving someone money does not give you permission to rape them.

The money should be entirely separate from the issue of consent.

[Freelanderness]

We have a phrase for "friend-zoned": It's called unrequited love.

And when a woman suffers from it, it's "tragic," but when a man suffers from it, it's "creepy."

You do not put Niceness™ coins into the machine and a Sex™ falls out.

And very few of the people in the "friend zone" believe that. That view is a strawman caricature that primarily exists in the minds of those attacking it.

Mind you, I've met people who felt entitled to sex and threw an angry fit about the opposite sex failing to act like a sex vending machine when they expected it, but most have been women. "Hell hath no fury" and all the bells on.

We're talking about people here.

Yes, real people with real relationships and real unhappiness; whose unhappiness you are trivializing and about whose relationships you are generalizing highly inappropriately.

We also have multiple phrases for what you're talking about: stringing along, carrying a torch for, etc.

And strangely, it's when a phrase is used mostly to apply to men that people suddenly start calling it creepy.

None of which are as fucking creepy as the idea that someone else owes you sex.

Again, this is not characteristic of the friend zone. Knock off the ideological bullshit.

Knock off your highly unscientific generalisations backed up with... exactly zero sources.

The friendzone is a place where platonic relationships exist. Complaining about being friendzoned is complaining about the lack of sex in the relationship. So no, there's not much of a difference at all. I don't feel sorry that you're not getting laid. You'll have to try a more sympathetic ear who views women as sex objects.

[Tahar Joblis]

If you think sex cannot be explicitly sold as a service without engaging in wrongdoing, you are, in actual fact, ideologically sex-negative.

Giving someone money does not give you permission to rape them.

Nor does giving someone money give you permission to force them to dig ditches at gunpoint.

One being owed a thing is entirely different from being entitled to collect that thing by force.

A sexual customer, or "jane," may be meaningfully and appropriately be described as being owed sex; just as a subcontractor on a construction job may be owed the service of having a cement truck show up at 9 am on Monday morning.

[The Merchant Republics]

A whiny sense of self-entitlement to a woman's affection is in my opinion unmanly.

Does that mean that a lesbian whining and feeling entitled makes her more womanly by virtue of making her less manly?

And what about complaints and a sense of entitlement to a man's affection? Is that unwomanly, or extra womanly?

False premise.

The opposite of manly is not womanly, it is unmanly. Likewise to be unwomanly is not be manly.

Men are not the opposite of women. Most of the traits I consider positive in men I consider likewise in women, they are not however the same sort of set of behaviours.

Perhaps it would be more clear if I compared womanly and manly to being gentlemanly and ladylike. The terms both imply honour and the elan of the gentile but also in themselves are different roles.

For a woman to demand a man's affection by virtue of entitlement is no less unwomanly than the reverse is unmanly.

[Freelanderness]

Giving someone money does not give you permission to rape them.

Nor does giving someone money give you permission to force them to dig ditches at gunpoint.

One being owed a thing is entirely different from being entitled to collect that thing by force.

A sexual customer, or "jane," may be meaningfully and appropriately be described as being owed sex; just as a subcontractor on a construction job may be owed the service of having a cement truck show up at 9 am on Monday morning.

You're off threadjacking again. Is this your method for every time we debate?

I'm not sex-negative, I'm simply not pro-rape.

[Guadalupador]

Oh, it exists friends, believe me for I have ventured through the zone on many an occasion.

[Tahar Joblis]

Knock off your highly unscientific generalisations backed up with... exactly zero sources.

The "highly unscientific generalisations" that consisted of... calling out your ideological and completely non-scientific bullshit.

You'll have to try a more sympathetic ear who views women as sex objects.

This is, again, not particularly characteristic of spontaneous usage of the word "friend zone."

You're making a strong positive claim here. You're claiming that people in the friend zone are sexually entitled and "view women as sex objects."

I have two contentions, attached to two normative statements.

1. Women are in the "friend zone" as well at meaningful rates, so you should cut out the sexist bullshit in which you gender the "zoner" as female and the "zonee" as male.

2. Sexual entitlement is more characteristic of women looking for sex from men than men in friendships with women, so you should cut out the sexist bullshit in which you describe men as sexually entitled and treating women as sex objects.

You have zero facts on your side. You have only a constructed narrative. That's it.

[Freelanderness]

Knock off your highly unscientific generalisations backed up with... exactly zero sources.

The "highly unscientific generalisations" that consisted of... calling out your ideological and completely non-scientific bullshit.

You'll have to try a more sympathetic ear who views women as sex objects.

This is, again, not particularly characteristic of spontaneous usage of the word "friend zone."

You're making a strong positive claim here. You're claiming that people in the friend zone are sexually entitled and "view women as sex objects."

I have two contentions, attached to two normative statements.

1. Women are in the "friend zone" as well at meaningful rates, so you should cut out the sexist bullshit in which you gender the "zoner" as female and the "zonee" as male.

2. Sexual entitlement is more characteristic of women looking for sex from men than men in friendships with women, so you should cut out the sexist bullshit in which you describe men as sexually entitled and treating women as sex objects.

You have zero facts on your side. You have only a constructed narrative. That's it.

And when a woman suffers from it, it's "tragic," but when a man suffers from it, it's "creepy."

Mind you, I've met people who felt entitled to sex and threw an angry fit about the opposite sex failing to act like a sex vending machine when they expected it, but most have been women. "Hell hath no fury" and all the bells on.

And strangely, it's when a phrase is used mostly to apply to men that people suddenly start calling it creepy.

dingdingding the polygraph test went off.

I literally gendered them once. Once. Whereas you have mentioned gender specific claims several times. I have already defined the friendzone as something gender neutral, so it'd be nice if you'd stop projecting your own insecurities on my words. I have not vilified the friendzone. I have vilified those who suggest it is anything other than a logical and reasonable part of human interaction.

[Tahar Joblis]

You're off threadjacking again.

Project much?
1. You say nobody is owed sex ever, and rant on some bullshit about nice coins, sex, and women as machines.
3. Someone else points out that in prostitution, one does indeed owe sex.
4. You insist that one does not owe sex in prostitution.
5. I correct you, since you're repeating yourself in wrongness.
6. You equivocate between "owe sex" and rape.
7. I explain to you that transactional sex is not rape, and that services being owed does not give the bearer the right to forcibly collect those services.

You brought up being owed sex. Someone else brought up prostitution. You brought up rape. I corrected your bullshit and moved back to the point.

I'm not sex-negative, I'm simply not pro-rape.

When you treat transactional sex as rape, you are sex-negative.

[Freelanderness]

You're off threadjacking again.

Project much?
1. You say nobody is owed sex ever, and rant on some bullshit about nice coins, sex, and women as machines.
3. Someone else points out that in prostitution, one does indeed owe sex.
4. You insist that one does not owe sex in prostitution.
5. I correct you, since you're repeating yourself in wrongness.
6. You equivocate between "owe sex" and rape.
7. I explain to you that transactional sex is not rape, and that services being owed does not give the bearer the right to forcibly collect those services.

You brought up being owed sex. Someone else brought up prostitution. You brought up rape. I corrected your bullshit and moved back to the point.

I'm not sex-negative, I'm simply not pro-rape.

When you treat transactional sex as rape, you are sex-negative.

So I stayed directly on topic, while you selectively chose to ignore my points and instead jump on them with prostitution and how i'm vilifying men despite not so much as mentioning the male gender. I get it, totally.

You're not discussing transactional sex. You're discussing rape.

[The Merchant Republics]

Oh, it exists friends, believe me for I have ventured through the zone on many an occasion.

Given the many deniers here.

And skeptics like myself, I'd be inclined to ask what your experiences have been, describes this zone for us.

[United Marxist Nations]

There are some pretty varying definitions; the definition that I usually refer to would be "One friend has romantic feelings toward the other, and that makes situations awkward." I'm not sure what the "general consensus" is though.

[Tahar Joblis]

The "highly unscientific generalisations" that consisted of... calling out your ideological and completely non-scientific bullshit.

This is, again, not particularly characteristic of spontaneous usage of the word "friend zone."

You're making a strong positive claim here. You're claiming that people in the friend zone are sexually entitled and "view women as sex objects."

I have two contentions, attached to two normative statements.

1. Women are in the "friend zone" as well at meaningful rates, so you should cut out the sexist bullshit in which you gender the "zoner" as female and the "zonee" as male.

2. Sexual entitlement is more characteristic of women looking for sex from men than men in friendships with women, so you should cut out the sexist bullshit in which you describe men as sexually entitled and treating women as sex objects.

You have zero facts on your side. You have only a constructed narrative. That's it.

And when a woman suffers from it, it's "tragic," but when a man suffers from it, it's "creepy."

Mind you, I've met people who felt entitled to sex and threw an angry fit about the opposite sex failing to act like a sex vending machine when they expected it, but most have been women. "Hell hath no fury" and all the bells on.

And strangely, it's when a phrase is used mostly to apply to men that people suddenly start calling it creepy.

dingdingding the polygraph test went off.

I literally gendered them once. Once.

That's a plural (general) "you" there. Note the first time I said that in this thread, it was replying to someone else gendering the issue.

Whereas you have mentioned gender specific claims several times.

I have mentioned gender specific claims of others multiple times. I have mentioned one gender-specific claim of my own: That, in my experience, women are more likely to act like they're sexually entitled.

I wasn't, by the way, referring strictly to women in the "friend zone." People in the friend zone usually have low self-esteem issues, rather than entitlement issues. You'll see more entitled barflies than entitled shy pining maidens.

I have already defined the friendzone as something gender neutral, so it'd be nice if you'd stop projecting your own insecurities on my words.

Dear, I'm not an insecure lad anguishing over being in the friend zone. I am the one running around defending maligned men.

My "friend zone" relationships have generally involved me putting a woman or girl in the "friend zone." And there have been times when I have been seriously tempted to abuse that position of power.

I have not vilified the friendzone. I have vilified those who suggest it is anything other than a logical and reasonable part of human interaction.

Convince me that you understand the distinction between them.

[Olthar]

The "friend zone" only exists in the minds of chauvinistic, possessive men who can't accept that women have wills of our own and aren't required to fuck them just because they're nice.

[Tahar Joblis]

So I stayed directly on topic

No, you didn't. You brought in some bullshit, someone else brought in prostitution, and then you brought in rape.

[Avenio]

And when a woman suffers from it, it's "tragic," but when a man suffers from it, it's "creepy."

Err, no, not necessarily. So sayeth the last 2000 years of the literary canon from pretty much every culture on the face of the planet, anyway.

[NERVUN]

If you think sex cannot be explicitly sold as a service without engaging in wrongdoing, you are, in actual fact, ideologically sex-negative.

Well, depending on the jurisdiction...

And just as an aside, prostitution is NOT legal in Vegas.
*grumbles some about that*

[United Marxist Nations]

The "friend zone" only exists in the minds of chauvinistic, possessive men who can't accept that women have wills of our own and aren't required to fuck them just because they're nice.

Given the variety in definitions of it, that's a bit of an unfair generalization. The views of it go from "My romantic feelings for friend X cause situations with them to be awkward", to male chauvinism.

[New haven america]

There are some pretty varying definitions; the definition that I usually refer to would be "One friend has romantic feelings toward the other, and that makes situations awkward." I'm not sure what the "general consensus" is though.

One friend has romantic feeling's for another friend, but the but the friend the person is interesting does something like "I just want to be friends" or "I don't want this(Friendship) to go away"

So you were mostly right, but there are different take's on this opinion.

[Tahar Joblis]

And when a woman suffers from it, it's "tragic," but when a man suffers from it, it's "creepy."

Err, no, not necessarily. So sayeth the last 2000 years of the literary canon from pretty much every culture on the face of the planet.

Don't pretend that the "literary canon" is uniform over the past 2000 years. Or that norms don't change.

The labeling en masse of the "friend zone" as "creepy" is very new, as is the phrase "friend zone." The en masse labeling of male sexuality as "creepy" is comparatively new.

[United Marxist Nations]

There are some pretty varying definitions; the definition that I usually refer to would be "One friend has romantic feelings toward the other, and that makes situations awkward." I'm not sure what the "general consensus" is though.

One friend has romantic feeling's for another friend, but the but the friend the person is interesting does something like "I just want to be friends" or "I don't want this(Friendship) to go away"

So you were mostly right.

The 'friend-zone', objectively, only says that unreciprocation is necessary; rejection isn't necessary for unreciprocation.