I’m too lazy to write a real post today, so I thought I’d point you all to a pretty decent analysis of the dreaded “friend zone” by Foz Meadows on goodreads.
Here she is addressing the “Nice Guys” of the world:
[S]omewhere along the line, you’ve got it into your head that if you’re romantically interested in a girl who sees you only as a friend, her failure to reciprocate your feelings is just that: a failing. That because you’re nice and treat her well, she therefore owes you at least one opportunity to present yourself as a viable sexual candidate, even if she’s already made it clear that this isn’t what she wants. That because she legitimately enjoys a friendship that you find painful (and which you’re under no obligation to continue), she is using you. That if a man wants more than friendship with a woman, then the friendship itself doesn’t even attain the status of a consolation prize, but is instead viewed as hell: a punishment to be endured because, so long as he thinks she owes him that golden opportunity, he is bound to persist in an association that hurts him – not because he cares about the friendship, but because he feels he’s invested too much kindness not to stick around for the (surely inevitable, albeit delayed) payoff.
Seriously, Nice Guys, if you think of your friendship with a woman as a means to an end, or some kind of purgatory, then it’s not really a friendship, and you’re doing both yourself and your crush a disservice by persisting in it. (I learned this lesson myself the hard way, a long time before there were helpful internet posts explaining to me why Nice Guying was a recipe for crappiness all around.)
Speaking of learning: I also learned from Foz Meadows’ post that there is a Wikipedia entry for “friend zone,” complete with advice on how dudes can avoid getting “friendzoned” in the first place.
Several advisers urged men, during the initial dates, to touch women physically in appropriate places such as elbows or shoulders as a means of increasing the sexual tension. … Adviser Ali Binazir agrees, and suggested for the man to be a “little bit dangerous”, not in a violent sense, but “with a bit of an edge to them”, and be unpredictable and feel “comfortable in their skin as sexual beings.”
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia … for Your Penis*.
Also: Here is the official Friend Zone anthem, “Consolation Prize” by Orange Juice. Lyrics here.
—
* Hetero cis penis only.
Cassandra, I may be reading too much into his use of past tense and admitting it was unhealthy, but at the least, he’s certainly politer than the average rage comic sort.
He’s definitely polite, but is the underlying attitude to relationships any different? I don’t think so.
idk? John, when you said you’re in a happy healthy relationship now, do you do things together/for your partner just because you want to do thing together/to make zir happy? (note I don’t mean the MRA “women want stuff” I mean “does making you partner happy make you happy?”)
Cassandra, he’s not a foaming at the mouth MRA, which might mean he’s capable of learning at least. (Some part of my brain is fundamentally unable to assume people are assholes, no matter how many times people are assholes, it’s probably how I haven’t turned into a jaded asshole myself though)
I guess what’s bothering me is that it seems like John thinks that this woman SHOULD have come to love him over time, because after all they got along and did so many things together, and he thinks that her never developing romantic feelings for him is a bad thing that she did to him. Which, though much more politely stated than the ragecomics, is essentially the same view of how relationships are assumed to work.
What I’m getting at is that obviously the foaming at the mouth rage is a problem, but the underlying idea of how relationships work is a much deeper and more widespread problem, and the ragecomics couldn’t exist without the kinder, gentler version of that idea permeating the culture. And that idea of how relationships work just isn’t realistic at all.
Oh, agreed, I just read his comments as implying he’d since gotten over that.
I’ve grown a lot since! The relationship, I’m in now is happy and healthy, I do things for her because I get a kick out of making her happy, and I know she would do similar for me. You can get angry at me about one thing though- its abit vending machiney. if I’ve planned an elaborate night , choc full of romance, dinner, wine and charm, I’m going to be a bit freaking cranky if it doesn’t end with some lovemaking. When does give and take in relationships become, like a vending machine?
Also if we’re playing to the gallery I think it’s important to point out that the rage isn’t the fundamental issue, the underlying view of relationships is. You know what I mean? As long as a lot of men retain that idea about how relationships are going to work it’s going to make both them and the women they interact with very unhappy.
And there you go – John’s latest comment illustrates part of what I mean. This whole way of looking at relationships just kind of brushes aside women’s sexual feelings (what if she happens to really not be in the mood that day? what if she’s not feeling well? what if she’s tired?), and sets up relationships as a transaction in which women are assumed to be obligated to give sex if men are nice to them.
>.< yep, same underlying issue
And while explaining for the gallery — that becomes not just friendzone but rapey when you expect she'll be putting out; if that's the only option that won't result in coercive tactics, then that *is* rape. No demanding sex, no matter how much work goes into it (John, my FWB is 500 miles away, your nice dinner has nothing on that. And since I'm actually friends with my friends-with-benefits, I shrug at that and ask what's on tv.)
Or had too much of that fine wine, again, you’re now pushing “that’s not just rape-y, that’s legal rape” (legal rape continues to mean “rape in the eyes of the law”, is there a better term for that or should I just assume legal rape is clear enough? I really don’t want to pull a rape-rape here >.<)
Honestly, that kind of “if I do good deeds for you then you will have to give me sex” stuff is the single most effective means of killing my libido. I wish it was possible to explain to people who do that that it’s the exact opposite of “romanctic”. It makes me feel like a Pez dispenser.
Is it as cranky as I get at not having my feelings considered? I somewhat doubt it.
Seriously! I feel like I’m stealing a line from one of Cliff’s cosmockings probably, but “I want to have sex with you right now” is such a bigger turn on. Hell, “I’d really love it if you’d give me a blowjob” is a whole lot better than the dinner game, and unlike dinner, there’s really not much in that for the partner on the giving end. (While this is directed at penis-havers, feel free to change your sexy-terms to suit your sexy-times)
You know the other thing that those kind of pre-planned “romantic” dates that are a means to get sex remind me of? Package holidays. The awful kind spoofed in TV shows/movies where there’s a camp councillor type who rounds people up to play games and have “fun”. “Fun” occurs at the pool every day from 1-2 pm, and you will have “fun” or else.
The libido just doesn’t work that way. Seriously, for the sake of the guys reading – not only is that unlikely to put your girlfriend in the mood for sex at that point in time, it may well make her less enthusiastic about having sex with you again in the future. No one enjoys being forced to fake “fun” on demand.
I think I need to clarify, I never hated her or resented the relationship, the fry and leela relationship is probably a good proxy. when she got jealous at me and other women and the confusion that created, that was a kind of purgatory because I didn’t want to let her go if she did have feelings . It was more of frustration at myself for failing at it. For the most my current relationship is fantastic, but I do wonder. Is the perfect relationship where neither party ever finds themself wanting for sex, or anything else for that matter? In addendum, one time my gf got drunk and mounted me while I was asleep. That’s rape right? (though I couldn’t be happier when I woke)
That doesn’t exist in reality (and that’s good, would you really want to not want anything else from life? that sounds quite boring)
Technically, yes; legally that depends where, because legalese is dumb like that; and I’m not touching the parenthetical.
Also, the only reason I’ve ever had sympathy for Fry’s unrequited love is because he can’t just get a new job. Dude’s basically a slave iirc, and certainly culture shocked (time shocked?)
*snaps fingers, puts on sunglasses*
Sexy.
I know I’m wrong to feel that way about not getting any, at the end of what I’ve thought a successful evening, I’ve for the most part come to terms with womens libido,the moods and the nuances. But for my particular relationship, where I’ve found me flirting with other women, being a bit caddish and cheeky, etc has more sway on whether I’m getting any, than a concerted effort to make her happy with a good night out, it’s a bit frustrating.
Wow, we’re sooo mysterious. Likes and dislikes and everything, almost like we’re people!
(1) She doesn’s owe you anything
(2) The “women only love bad boys” is strong with this one.
Also, the only reason I’ve ever had sympathy for Fry’s unrequited love is because he can’t just get a new job. Dude’s basically a slave iirc, and certainly culture shocked (time shocked?)
True, and I guess he doesn’t hate Leela for it either
QFT and a typo fix
And John, maybe the difference is that taking her out to dinner could be about food, whereas flirting with anyone makes it clear you’re in the mood, have you tried just flirting with her directly?
(Does manboobz often become basic dating advice?)
Yeah, I feel like untangling all the sexist programming here would take a very long time, and it’s late.
Let’s make one attempt to lay this out in a way that’s really, really simple. Being taken out to dinner doesn’t make women horny. Having sex when you’re not horny isn’t fun. Like men, women want to have sex when they’re horny, rather than because of some mystical non-sexual lady reasons. There is quite literally NOTHING that you can do that will guarantee that your girlfriend will want to have sex with you at any given time, because she’s a person and her libido doesn’t have an on/off switch. It appears that you are at least somewhat aware of this, and yet you’re still prone to sulking when she is not inclined to dispense sex on demand, and you’re still attempting to go through the dinner-and-a-movie motions in an attempt to extract sex from her. Why? You already know that it doesn’t work. Continuing to do the same thing over and over again once you have observed that it does not yield the desired results is, well, not very smart.
If you stopped thinking of your relationship in terms of whether or not you’re “getting any” that would be a good start. Or you can just continue to run on that hamster wheel. Your choice, really.
Well, I’ve only got my sex drive to go by. And I love sex, I’d never turn it down. It’s so damn fun. And well, growing up with a dad, who’s answer to to my girl problems, was literally: “Son , If women didn’t have tits and a box , they’d be piled 8 high at the tip and people would throw rocks at them” means I didn’t actually have a role model I could take seriously. I’ve just been finding out a lot of things the hard way.
I also would like to point out that as far as I know, the woman I’m with loves the assertive bad boy thing, as it’s the antithesis to my usual clingy puppy-dog eager to please-ness. I found that out by myself, no internetz.
I do more than take her for dinner, but you’re right. I think she’s told me these things herself.
are relationships just a sort of dynamic, of both of you getting as much as you both want, without resorting to means that would discomfort the other?