• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Science of the Friend Zone

When I said crime I meant it in the same context it was used in the review. Not a literal breaking the law crime, but a crime of 'not being buff', or 'not being unobtainable'.
See the video made a sports analogy, and you're being anal about it. I don't follow basketball either but you don't see me writing post after post taking a sports analogy literally.

Point is, there are many things that can make you desirable or non-desirable to someone. The amount of 'nice-ness' you exude does not entitle you to anything.
The video covered this. Being 'nice' is more likely to land you in the friend zone.
 
Last edited:
See the video made a sports analogy, and you're being anal about it. I don't follow basketball either but you don't see me writing post after post taking a sports analogy literally.

What? Sports analogy? I'm talking about the huffpost review and how it pisses me off because of the way it suggests that men who don't make mistakes/aren't dicks are entitled to sex.

The video covered this. Being 'nice' is more likely to land you in the friend zone.

And I disagree. Think that was pretty clear when I said whether a girl wants a relationship or not with you doesn't matter how much 'niceness' you exude.

You know what's most likely to land you in a meaningful relationship with a woman? Being compatible with them. And that's not something that you just decide to be on the spot. Be genuine about who you are and what your intentions are. Most people are naturally 'nice' by default. Don't go parading around as some selfless white knight because you want to get into a women's pants. That kind of 'niceness' is completely insincere and people will see through that.
 
Agreed apart from that one line in the middle.

Being nice to someone because you enjoy their company is different to being nice to someone because you want to have sex with them.

18jiitjvij3s2png.png

Eh. I'm not entirely sure that most guys are quite so calculating or pathological about it. For most, I think it's an ad hoc psychological trap that they just sort of find themselves falling into.

i.e. "I'm shy, kind of insecure, and not great with being forward, so I'm kind of hoping that something develops organically out of getting to know this girl in a more platonic context first, and then I'll make my move when the time feels right."

They just allow themselves to linger there to the point of being self-destructive and unhealthy.

Now, personally, I'm not the sort to rush into relationships myself. I'm cautious. I also meet few enough women I actually click with to I know why one might be inclined to "fixate" a little bit on those that one does (guys who go through women like kleenex usually don't).

I'll go out on a limb here, as such, and say that there's nothing necessarily wrong with any of that, so long as you approach it the right way, and take the hint that she's "just not that into you" when appropriate. Like I said, it's the other kind of guys, who choose to sit around pining over some girl, basically being her doormat, and growing ever more resentful of her by the day, while she runs around dating other guys, and has long past made it abundantly clear that she's not really interested in them, who've got problems. They just need to move on, and it's their own fault for not doing so.

I've actually kind of got a girl right now I'm probably in the "friend zone" with. I've known her for about a year or so, I kind of like her, and she's made some vague allusions towards being kind of interested in me as well - though she's been dating other guys for most of the time I've known her.

It's different, however, in that I'm not obsessing over her, going out of my way to do favors for her, or tearing down her current relationships. She's just this girl I know, who's pleasant to hang out with, and I wouldn't mind having sex with if push were to ever come to shove (lol). I also know full well that I don't have any reason to resent her over it, as I've never actually made a move.
 
What? Sports analogy? I'm talking about the huffpost review and how it pisses me off because of the way it suggests that men who don't make mistakes/aren't dicks are entitled to sex.
One more reason to disregard the HuffingAndPuffington Post, then.

And I disagree.
And that's fine, you just seem to be ruining this thread's buzz. Go be literal somewhere else. This meant to be a fun thread, not a but-hurt thread. If it hits to close to home, then move on.
 
Eh. I'm not entirely sure that most guys are quite so calculating or pathological about it. For most, I think it's an ad hoc psychological trap that they just sort of find themselves falling into.

i.e. "I'm shy, kind of insecure, and not great with being forward, so I'm kind of hoping that something develops organically out of getting to know this girl in a more platonic context first, and then I'll make my move when the time feels right."

They just allow themselves to linger there to the point of being self-destructive and unhealthy.

Now, personally, I'm not the sort to rush into relationships myself. I'm cautious. I also meet few enough women I actually click with to I know why one might be inclined to "fixate" a little bit on those that one does (guys who go through women like kleenex usually don't).

I'll go out on a limb here, as such, and say that there's nothing necessarily wrong with any of that, so long as you approach it the right way, and take the hint that she's "just not that into you" when appropriate. Like I said, it's the other kind of guys, who choose to sit around pining over some girl, basically being her doormat, and growing ever more resentful of her by the day, while she runs around dating other guys, and has long past made it abundantly clear that she's not really interested in them, who've got problems. They just need to move on, and it's their own fault for not doing so.

I've actually kind of got a girl right now I'm probably in the "friend zone" with. I've known her for about a year or so, I kind of like her, and she's made some vague allusions towards being kind of interested in me as well - though she's been dating other guys for most of the time I've known her.

It's different, however, in that I'm not obsessing over her, going out of my way to do favors for her, or tearing down her current relationships. She's just this girl I know, who's pleasant to hang out with, and I wouldn't mind having sex with if push were to ever come to shove (lol). I also know full well that I don't have any reason to resent her over it, as I've never actually made a move.

Tbh I pretty much agree with most of the things you're saying. Things depend on situation to situation. At the end of the day, being resentful about things isn't a 'nice' thing to do.

I guess what part of my objection to the whole friend zone thing comes down to the fact that the 'friend zone' is considered a negative term. In your case, for example, if you enjoy the company of this girl but don't think a relationship would work out, then why is the friend zone is necessarily a bad thing? We don't normally consider more friends a bad thing?

It used to be that women and men had very different and very defined roles in their lives, and so shared interests would be minimized. But this is the 21st century, men and women can share interests. There are girls in my fantasy league, in my scuba diving class, on my Playstation friends list. The idea that men and women can't and shouldn't be 'just friends' is so outdated. In many cases, platonic cross-sex friendship is just as fulfilling as inter-sex friendship (if anyone is close with a brother or sister they might already know this), and the idea that it's a bad thing just needs to be stamped out.
 
Tbh I pretty much agree with most of the things you're saying. Things depend on situation to situation. At the end of the day, being resentful about things isn't a 'nice' thing to do.

I guess what part of my objection to the whole friend zone thing comes down to the fact that the 'friend zone' is considered a negative term. In your case, for example, if you enjoy the company of this girl but don't think a relationship would work out, then why is the friend zone is necessarily a bad thing? We don't normally consider more friends a bad thing?

It used to be that women and men had very different and very defined roles in their lives, and so shared interests would be minimized. But this is the 21st century, men and women can share interests. There are girls in my fantasy league, in my scuba diving class, on my Playstation friends list. The idea that men and women can't and shouldn't be 'just friends' is so outdated. In many cases, platonic cross-sex friendship is just as fulfilling as inter-sex friendship (if anyone is close with a brother or sister they might already know this), and the idea that it's a bad thing just needs to be stamped out.

I agree. There's nothing at all wrong with opposite sex friendships. While I do think that a certain degree of sexual tension derived awkwardness is pretty much always going to derive from them (usually more on the male side of the equation than the female), that only really becomes a problem if it is mismanaged, or one group or the other isn't clearly communicating expectations.

I would also note that women aren't entirely blameless in this phenomena either. There are some legitimately manipulative women out there who will tease, lead-on, or otherwise exploit men which they know to be "smiten" with them towards their own selfish ends. Those women are (excuse my French) twats. They are not, however, a majority, nor are the men they target wholly innocent victims.

As they say, it takes "two to tango," and while a woman who uses men in such a manner might very be a bitch, any man who actually allows himself to be used is an imbecile.
 
I agree. There's nothing at all wrong with opposite sex friendships. While I do think that a certain degree of sexual tension derived awkwardness is pretty much always going to derive from them (usually more on the male side of the equation than the female), that only really becomes a problem if it is mismanaged, or one group or the other isn't clearly communicating expectations.

I would also note that women aren't entirely blameless in this phenomena either. There are some legitimately manipulative women out there who will tease, lead-on, or otherwise exploit men which they know to be "smiten" with them towards their own selfish ends. Those women are (excuse my French) twats. They are not, however, a majority, nor are the men they target wholly innocent victims.

As they say, it takes "two to tango," and while a woman who uses men in such a manner might very be a bitch, any man who actually allows himself to be used is an imbecile.

I think (and it's my own thought, not science/whatever), that a lot of young men are given advice by their mothers, on how to treat women they want to date.
What is considered desirable.
This advice is good, when you're dating someone in the age and interest group, of a mother.

This is not good, when it comes to women who fall in that general age/interest group of, not mother.
 
I didn't have ten minutes to devote to a video, but my opinion is that women who are only turned on by the bad boy rather than the nice guy usually end up alone at the end because once the excitement of the sex wears off, they don't have anything. If they could be attracted to the nice guy, instead, they could have a meaningful relationship that lasts a lifetime.

No, no, no. This is what the whiny "nice guy" keeps telling themselves.

In reality, the self-described "nice guy" is usually just a doormat. Women aren't attracted to doormats. You don't have to be a jerk, you just need to be confident in yourself.

The reason I know all this is that I've been there.

"Friend zone" is a term idiots use to describe a situation in which they feel entitled to sex/love/relationships. Mostly sex. I've checked the boxes. I took care of your dog on your vacation. I helped you move your stuff. Gave you a ride when your car broke down. You're supposed to want me now!

Doesn't work that way. If you find yourself resentful of a woman for being your friend instead of your girlfriend, you're an asshole.
 
Well I think there's a distinct difference (that maybe gets fuzzy) between 'friends' and 'acquaintances'. I have a lot of acquaintances (everything from business associates to parents in my kid's schools) - but they're not in the friend territory as I'd never bother to call them up and see how they're doing or buy them something for no reason. Nor do I discuss intense or highly private or personal things with them.

But maybe that's why I enjoy writing so much - I can explore all those intense and personal things without the tedium of personalizing it or going into reciprocal debt (both sharing / both keeping secrets / both holding each other to expectations and ideals).

But who wants to be friends with a woman who defines friendship customs as reciprocal debt? LOL





But what's interesting is that 'Friend Zone' suggests a guy:

Wants a girl . . . is rejected (friend zoned) . . . and THEN doesn't find anybody else - he still wants her and having her in a 'friend' way is better than not at all.

In fact, the core concept of Friend Zone stereotypical behavior sort of goes against the video-guy's point (that it's because women are choosy and men are ambitious). If men are all prone to being ambitious then they wouldn't care about Friend Zone. They'd be more like me with an easy on-off switch and move on quickly because 'why bother'.

So . . . I think what encourages 'Friend Zone' is an inability to let go and complacency.




Interesting indeed - I might read it, too.


I think you hit the nail square on the head about rejection. Some are good at it. Others not so much. The ones bitching about the friend zone are just whiny little boys who need to get off their hides and go hunting.

I tend to think that those that tend to live more isolated lives tend to be more extreme with their on/off switch one way or another though. I used to cut bait really quickly.
 
Back
Top Bottom