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.
My wife and I are usually in sync, but we both turn each other down occasionally – because we both know that if one of us isn’t in the mood for whatever reason (tired, stressed, sick), sex really isn’t going to be that much fun for either of us.
As for this whole notion of the perfect partner, I doubt very much that person exists. My wife lacks certain interests that I might have considered deal-breakers back in the days when I was less mature about such things, but she’s so spectacularly right for me in all sorts of fundamental ways that things like her near-total lack of interest in music don’t faze me at all.
I like sex and romance, but I like them in non-intersecting ways. Romance doesn’t make me horny and sex doesn’t make me lovey-dovey.
Romance is also non-intersecting with how much money a guy spent. I come from a rich family, I know all about the “how dare you say we don’t care about you, we spent thousands of dollars to keep you out of our sight!” game. And I get the very same ooky feeling when I hear “how dare she say I’m not romantic, that was a hundred dollar dinner and thirty dollar flowers!”
Yeah, and how exactly are we supposed to tally how enthusiastic the sex is or what specific acts should be done? Because when you look at the market value…a hundred bucks don’t get you much.
@Kendra, the bionic mommy:
Thanks, but just because I disagree with most popular opinions on this topic here DOES NOT mean I’m totally clueless at dating and need basic advice. But apart from your opinion about me, your comment was meant for badly infatuated bloke who needs help, and not a manipulative jerk who needs radical attitude correction therapy. That’s really exceptional here.
Good luck,
Y.
There’s been more than one case of a guy (if a woman has ever done this, I’d love a link) attempting to sue former dates for the amount he spent on her. In one case about a decade ago, this was after a four-year relationship broke up, and it transpired that he’d kept all the receipts and maintained a meticulous spreadsheet of everything he’d paid towards her throughout that time. Not only did the judge throw the case out, but I suspect (and hope) that the plaintiff might have difficulty ever finding a date again.
For me, romance is buying things my wife likes (usually something edible and in a packet) and hiding them somewhere in the house or her car for her to stumble upon later, ideally when she’s alone. Once I contrived to have something left in her desk drawer at work, which confused the hell out of her until a colleague confessed that we’d conspired together. And no, I haven’t kept receipts.
Well, that’s unfair! He needs to deduct sex acts at market value.
That’s probably why the judge threw it out.
Seriously yzek, grow a pair!
Women like jerks and hate nice guys. You need to up your game and stop being such a whiny bitchboi.
Futrelle: Women don’t like nice guys??? WHO’DATHUNK! Geez, way to state the obvious.
If women liked jerks, MSN, you’d have a harem thousands strong.
Hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!eleventy!
@Monsieur sans Nom:
Seriously, did you actually read my comments? I may only repeat what i said to Kendra, the bionic mommy with a “FY” instead of “good luck”.
@Regulars: brace yourself, PUA is comming.
Y.
I think I need to lurk here more often. This thread has been fascinating and now it looks like MSN is going to give us something worth munching popcorn for.
Oh noes! PUA!
This is supposed to be scary? Being PUA is a really great way of broadcasting not to date you for any length of time.
RE: yzek
Please don’t use PUA. It’s insulting to you and the person you use it on.
RE: MSN
Because you’ve never, ever whined on this site. NEVER.
I suppose by definition good PUA is PUA the woman doesn’t know about (and there’s nothing creepy about that…), but every PUA I’ve ever seen in the wild has been hilariously bad… and hilariously lonely.
(Cue “well, PUA only works on hot girls who aren’t meanie man-haters.” The Emperor’s PUA, you see.)
@LBT:
“Please don’t use PUA” just after a gave a middle finger to PUA-advocate? Seriously, one cannot ever be sure: am I trolled or misunderstood?
Take care,
Y.
I’m tactfully assuming that English isn’t yzek’s first language…
What’s gonna happen? We get bombarded with boring pick-up lines and snidely rude “compliments”? Because none of us have ever seen that before.
Wetherby, y’know how Jackson Pollack and Andy Warhol were actually trained artists, and Schopenhauer was a trained musician?
So I wouldn’t be so quick to assume yzek is bad with English.
Not Schopenhauer, who was I thinking of? Shostakovich, maybe.
Cliff:
True, but that specific story, even some of the wording. This isn’t idle speculation, this is amateur untrained fornesic text analysis from a dilettante.
@Wetherby: “English isn’t yzek’s first language”
WOW! First 100% accurate opinion about me!
Y.
PS.
1. I really hate PUA, because they mix good advice with complete BS.
2. Is there something wrong about my GoT joke except double “m”? Live and learn…
I’ll assume you’re asking in good faith, and explain that without any context to indicate otherwise, it sounded more like a threat than a warning. If you post more here and people start remembering “Yzek thinks PUAs are stupid,” having that context will make people less likely to misinterpret you, but right now, you’re new, and we get enough new troll-types showing up to threaten us in idiotic ways that the context people are working from is one in which a new poster saying, “Watch out, the PUAs are coming” is more likely to mean “ha ha, you evil feminists, the PUAs will teach you a lesson!” than “It looks like idiots are descending on you guys, so be prepared.”
@Polliwog: thanks; I assumed my irony was obvious and got confused. I’ve already de-lurked myself before and return like Halley’s comet since then, but I never discussed PUA.
If by “return like Halley’s comet” you mean you didn’t stick the flounce from last time, then ok, sure.
Hershele: Not Schopenhauer, who was I thinking of? Shostakovich, maybe.
Schoenberg, I suspect.
I happen to like Pollack, and be iffy on Warhol. Schoenberg was fine, IMO, before he got into atonal music. He did some symphonic works, and other minor pieces. They weren’t great, but they didn’t make me want to pour boiling lead in my ears t