This is a comment by Salvice on the post “The Ups and Downs of ‘The Friend Zone’“.
“If you remove the gendered adjectives and pronouns and replace them with gender neutral terms such as ‘they’ and ‘their’, I think that Mr. Showtime explains a pretty basic but effective model of how to establish boundaries and differentiation between intimate partners, friends, and acquaintances. Regardless of a person’s biological sex or gender expression, boundaries need to be respected.
“I think that ‘the friend zone’ only succeeds at trivializing the importance of platonic relationships. It implies relationship with a person of your romantically preferred demographic is only valuable if it involves sexual interaction. I think it would be equally disrespectful for a man to treat his acquaintances in such a way as it would for a woman to do the same to her acquaintances. Sometimes it’s not just about the biological sex or gender of the person that is writing about life experiences. If, through his own experiences as an Afro-American man, he can express how he learned to establish and become respectful of other people’s boundaries, he can urge others to reflect upon their own questions about social boundaries. I think that, as long as we are willing to listen to the stories of other people, we may find that we have many similar experiences. We all reside within the system of hegemonic norms, so surely each and every one of us has an experience that is linked to the current state of interpersonal existence.
“Can we please start seeking out the potentially constructive similarities with equal fervor to that with which we dwell upon differences? It is easy to point out shortcomings, but it requires building in a new direction to overcome our straight and narrow confines.”
More Comments of the Day
Photo credit: Flickr / Andrew-Hyde
About the Editors
““I think that ‘the friend zone’ only succeeds at trivializing the importance of platonic relationships. It implies relationship with a person of your romantically preferred demographic is only valuable if it involves sexual interaction. I think it would be equally disrespectful for a man to treat his acquaintances in such a way as it would for a woman to do the same to her acquaintances.”
Fortunately in a free society everybody is entitled to pursue the relationships he/she desires. A man doesn’t have to value platonic friendships with women. Saying otherwise is disrespecting his autonomy.
And fortunately in our free society we can establish our own personal boundaries to keep people who desire such relationships where we want (or don’t want) them. Your autonomy does not give you the right to violate my relationship boundaries. That would be a violation of my autonomy. Respect my boundaries, and I will respect yours.
I dpn’t know what you mean. What does your commentary has to do with my? Are we disagreeing at all?
How would one violate relationship boundaries? You could force a relationship upon people, like holding somebody captive or stalking, but I don’t think you mean that.
I was just stating that everyone should be free to pursue the relationships one desires, without being shamed into conforming to other people believes, how relationships should look like. Obviously this must also include the freedom to leave relationships at will (with the exception of parent child relationships of course).
Alberich, I think Salvice is saying that if someone tells you that they don’t want a non-platonic relationship with you, you have a duty to respect that and to respect their boundaries.
Sorry, I still don’t get it. Did you answer my question:
“How would one violate relationship boundaries?”
Here is what I understand and don’t understand:
“…if someone tells you that they don’t want a non-platonic relationship with you…”
then they have given me a useful piece of information.
“…you have a duty to respect that…”
How do I do that? You mean like not raping or stalking them? As you should never rape or stalk somebody, this wouldn’t be related at all to the “if”-part of to sentence. So what do you mean?
“… and to respect their boundaries.”
This part is true in general for every relationship and hence doesn’t depend on the “if”-part.
I do apologize, Alberich. I should have reread my response before posting. It sounds ~way~ more confrontational than I had originally intended, and I did not mean to address you harshly.
But yes, Rick has summed up my response in a better way. Likewise, if a person were to prefer that his or her relationships be short term or strictly sexual, we must respect those boundaries without causing that person alienation or shame. It is okay and normal to want sexual relationships, and nobody should be shamed for pursuing them. I guess an analog to demonstrate Alberich’s position would be Person A expecting to Person B to move in and adopt a puppy after Person B had expressly declared no desire for an extended relationship following a one-night stand. Person A would be forcing a relationship model onto Person B that is outside of Person B’s current boundaries, which is an equally destructive violation of his or her (Person B’s) personal autonomy.
Beyond just wanting sex, I think that “the friend zone” implies resentment towards the person who has set the social boundary at friendship. Being “friend zoned” is as much a state of mind as it is a relationship position. A person who simply moves on after an unsuccessful attempt at a sexual encounter didn’t get “friend zoned”. That person simply moved on. Recognizing that their boundaries were not compatible, the individual has instead opted to seek other people with more compatible boundaries. There is no resentment, no effort to hang onto a relationship that will never be.
I don’t think it was made clear in the original post that the ability to respect other people’s boundaries, regardless of one’s own preferred relationship model, is of utmost importance. Critiques and responses bring clarity, and I think that this discussion is very important.
I really don’t mind confrontational. Confrontational and honest is way better then sugarcoated.
But maybe I actually disagree with you:
“Likewise, if a person were to prefer that his or her relationships be short term or strictly sexual, we must respect those boundaries without causing that person alienation or shame”
This is, in my opinion, in this form an unreasonable demand. If somebody I like but not love told me they loved me and wanted to be my girlfriend, I would reject her and feel shame about the hurt I caused with this rejection. She on the other hand might not want to be just my friend because she couldn’t handle her feelings. How could I expect from her not to think of her emotional well being first. So indeed this scenario would lead to alienation between us. Of course it is bad behaviour to be manipulative or guilt shame somebody in this scenario on purpose, but I don’t think that somebody, who feels the sting of rejection should be required to be stoic and hide their hurt feelings. All in all it is an unfortunate and difficult situation which requires consideration on both sides and causes pain to both, the rejecter and the rejected.
“Beyond just wanting sex, I think that “the friend zone” implies resentment towards the person who has set the social boundary at friendship.”
I personally dislike the term “friend zone” because it is too often used to vilify the alleged “friend zoner” and treats the parties involved as machines, which have buttons with functions like friend, sex etc.
That being sad I don’t think that everybody who uses the term friend zone shows resentment. Some people are just trying to express their hurt and garner some sympathy. Some show confusion how a heterosexual woman can know for sure that she will never want a relationship with a certain person she likes, while they never say never to women they like. Some people want to articulate that the woman they have a crush on, expects them to play a role they can’t stand, like being happy for her because of her new boyfriend, while they are jealous and sad.
Anyway the term “friend zone” is ill defined and often used as a slur and hence is better left behind.
“Recognizing that their boundaries were not compatible, the individual has instead opted to seek other people with more compatible boundaries. There is no resentment, no effort to hang onto a relationship that will never be.”
What if a men is head over heels in love with a female friend. He might not be able to move on, because every other woman might seem to him as a consolation prize and so he might think it is not fair to other women to pursue them. Obviously he would be in a bad place, obviously he should respect if his love interest doesn’t want him to woo her and he shouldn’t try to shame her, but how can one criticise him for his feelings?
In response to both posts:
I am not asking people not to feel emotions. I am asking for people not to force their emotions onto others who have not consented to reciprocity. This issue is ultimately about being emotionally mature enough to handle the fact that some people just don’t want to date some other people. It is 100% okay and normal for a person to feel sad, lonely, or angry over a rejection. But it is not an unreasonable demand to ask that someone not force those negative emotions onto another person. That is an exercise of respect for another person’s expressed boundaries. It is not okay to denigrate or be hostile towards the rejecter for his or her decision.
Feelings and emotions are not choices. That’s what makes them feelings. If feelings and emotions could be chosen, then they would be choices, not feelings. But how one manifests and copes to his or her feelings is a choice. There are healthy and unhealthy ways of manifesting emotions. Incessant texting, threats to the pursued person’s safety, threats of suicide, vandalism, rape, and murder are all unhealthy ways of manifesting the negative emotions associated with rejection. More subtle unhealthy manifestations would be uninvited touching, sexually suggestive or passive-aggressive remarks, cussing out, and unwanted gift-giving, for example. The phenomenon of a man calling a woman a “slut” because she won’t date him would be an example of him negatively manifesting his emotions that spawn from rejection. Again, his feelings of anger and sadness are not a choice, and they are normal and healthy to experience. But his negative conduct towards her is a choice. The subtle manifestations of negative emotions are the most common, and are also the most difficult to prosecute and defend against. All of these actions are violations of relationship boundaries, no matter how subtle or severe.
However, there are healthier ways to manifest the emotions associated with feelings that spawn from rejection. A person who is sad or angry over rejection can talk through the emotions with another friend, write in a journal, draw, paint, exercise, go for a hike, or volunteer (if the negative feelings are particularly long-term). If after a rejection, a guy paints an image or writes a journal entry expressing his sense of pain and solitude, he has chosen a healthy means of manifesting his emotions. It was not his choice to feel upset or angry about his rejection. But it was his choice to manifest his emotions through healthier means, such as artistic expression. These coping mechanisms turn a person’s emotional energy towards rebuilding oneself, which is an act that does not violate relationship boundaries.
As for people experiencing “shame” over romantic rejection, that indicative of an underlying insecurity, and there are far too many forces in our society that reinforce a sense of personal inferiority. To be clear, shame is a distinctly different emotion from loneliness, sadness, and anger, though in many cases all of four of those negative feelings can be present at the same time. Unfortunately, far too many people (almost all people) place too much value on the willingness of other people to be romantically involved with them (can someone please write or direct me to more articles on the sense of relationship entitlement that the media encourages?). A person who is truly comfortable with who they are will not be dependent on establishing their sense of self based on another person’s willingness or unwillingness to be intimately involved. Easier said than done, yes, but once that level of emotional security is reached, life’s rejections start to hurt very little, if at all. Other people’s opinion of you does not and should not define your sense of self worth. I am saying this as a person who was single throughout college (age 18-22) plus another two years. It is one’s own responsibility to become emotionally secure with oneself. No one can do that for a person except for him or herself.
Eep! If a moderator wouldn’t mind placing a paragraph break between “It is not okay to denigrate or be hostile towards the rejecter for his or her decision.” and “Feelings and emotions are not choices.” It was not preserved in the copy-paste transfer.
Do feel free to delete this request post as well.
Salvice,
thank you for the detailed response.
“I am asking for people not to force their emotions onto others who have not consented to reciprocity.”
The question is what can be called “force”. I basically agree that your examples of negative ways to handle rejection describe inappropriate (some of them appalling) behaviour. So while I agree that we shouldn’t actively push our emotions on unwilling others, we can hardly avoid to inflict our emotions on other people. For example when a man proposes an intimate relationship to a woman, he inflicts not only his affection for her on her, but also his potential disappointment in case she rejects him. Further our body language inflicts our emotions all the time. For example sometimes when I walk home late, a woman walks in front of me and sometimes her body language shows fear, and I have to deal with it. We also show emotions by what we do, like listen to certain music, and how we do it; sadness can often manifest in a lack of drive and focus. My point is that it is unreasonable to expect to control those things, even if they inflict their emotions on us and this bothers us.
Oh I forgot something.
“As for people experiencing “shame” over romantic rejection, that indicative of an underlying insecurity, and there are far too many forces in our society that reinforce a sense of personal inferiority”
Here seems to be a misunderstanding. I said or tried to say) that the rejecter feels shame for inflicting undeserved pain on a person he/she likes.
my bad ^^;
Indeed, rejecting someone isn’t a good feeling, but there is nothing to be ashamed of if one does not wish the be in a relationship with another person. If they are true to themselves, the difficult emotions associated with turning someone down will subside quickly. It is better to be honest and single than dishonest and in an unhealthy, unwanted relationship… or even worse, stringing the other person along with the belief that there is relationship potential. That would be plain old cruel. The latter two scenarios will cause more pain for everyone in the long run.
It does suck to say “no”, and it sucks even harder to be rejected. To put one’s emotions out there and ask is an incredible leap of honesty, and to turn someone down requires honesty as well. Honesty is not always easy, but in any relationship, it is the right thing to do. At the very least if the boundary is established early, that will clear the water for all persons involved early enough that neither will unknowingly invest themselves in an inevitable failure. Once both parties are on the same page, they will have a clear boundary and motive to cultivate a platonic relationship (if that is desired), or separate and move on if that is the healthiest next step. Significantly easier said than done, of course!
Why is this so complicated? The advice I’ll give my sons when they’re old enough:
Ask for what you want, don’t pine away hoping. Listen to the answer you get. Accept what they’re offering or don’t and move on. Some times life disappoints you. Don’t take half and torture yourself thinking you’ll change a woman’s mind.
I think it’s important to understand the frustration n pain felt by those who nearly ALWAYS become a platonic friend. How annoying is it to meet 5, 10, 20 women you only become freinds with and never more. When you have 20 close female friends already (or whatever number) you eventually end up with not really needing more friends but you do need a partner, someone to love, care for, or just at have sex with (whatever floats your boat). There does come a point where you can have too many friends and so the thought of another seems depressing when you really want just one who desires you for more than friendship.
Add in a few women who use these men and you compound that pain exponentially, I’ve seen quite a few guys go through that. There comes a point when 100 platonic friends does not fill that empty hole in your heart, for those that desire love, companionship, etc, what does a heap of women saying how great you are do to the self esteem when you aren’t great enough for THEM. The nice guy cliche is a complex one, it’s not as simple as saying they don’t want friends, just a girlfriend/sex.
As for me? I just want respect, a fulfilling friendship and if more comes along then great! It’s annoying to be just the friend but that’s life. Too bad so many are married by my age, it becomes quite annoying but never give up hope!
Archy,
I’ve heard your comment from friends of mine before, but I still don’t really get it.
I don’t understand how this happens because it seems like being honest about your expectations up-front would solve this problem. If you are clear about romantic intentions, and she’s not into it, then you can get out of there pretty quickly. It seems like this problem only arises if you are not clear about your true intentions, and thus invite a platonic friendship that you don’t really want.
How good do you have to know somebody before you can decide that you want to have an intimate relationship with them? Many people have partners which have been their platonic friends first.
I think that your question pretty much sums up everyone’s confusion. There is no right answer. There are people who meet, get married one week later, and remain life partners. There are others who date for several months or years, get married, and divorce a short while later. Believe me, I wish there were a singular answer too! It sucks being alone, sometimes. But I guess it would come down to clear communication and respect between the parties involved, and hopefully any romantic advances will be well-received.
Best of luck to everyone out there. The dating world can be VERY unkind.
Alberich,
I’m confused as to your question.
It seems like there are two possibilities:
Possibility 1: the woman is someone you would be interested in having only a platonic friendship with (perhaps you know her already, perhaps your don’t, it doesn’t really matter). If this is the case, then there is no problem: if you end up in the “friend zone” you wanted it anyway.
Possibility 2: the woman is someone you have no real interest in maintaining “just” a platonic friendship with (again, perhaps you know her already, perhaps you don’t, it doesn’t really matter). If this is the case, and you tell her your feelings, and listen to her response, then it should not be an issue either because if she turned you down, then you know and can move on.
The “problem” seems to only exist where somehow you entered into a platonic friendship with a woman that you have no interest in maintaining just a platonic friendship with. However, I cannot see a way where telling her does not solve this problem. Even if she was someone you were already friends with, telling her would STILL solve the problem because you would have your answer and could move forward one way or the other.
I might have misunderstood your usage of the term” up-front”, I understood it as meaning from the start, in which case the problem arises that you yourself might not know from the start what a kind of relationship you want or don’t want with this woman.
I agree with what you are saying and see little use in the term “friend zone”, but as I understand it some guys talking about dating behaviour, use the term “friend zone”, to warn other guys from behaving to much as a platonic friend when you get to know a woman, because then she will put you in the friend zone and you will never have a chance to date her, they claim.
Personally I highly doubt that this is true.
Why do you doubt? I wouldn’t say “never” but there is such a phenomenon as the friend zone effect.
Status is a powerful turn on for many, many women. Friendship is a peer relationship. Do the math. In study after study has shown that you can increase the sexual attractiveness of a man simply by placing a more powerful job title under his picture.
Real simple. It happens because there are tons of women who don’t mind stringing a guy along for their benefit, and their are tons of guys who are hold on to hope while they are strung along. If anything it’s male honesty about sex that gets these guys used over and over again.
I don’t really understand this either. If you are clear about your feelings, she will either reciprocate or she won’t. Being “strung along” implies lack of reciprocation, which you can take pretty quickly to mean that it is time to move on.
At best we could chalk it up to naivete that is causing a man to be confused as to what counts as “reciprocation” and what does not, but that has a great deal more to do with experience than with gender.
But not everyone will move on. You do realize that right? Lots of people will stay and hope. As a matter of fact lots of movies are based on the fact that if someone waits long enough their love interest will see the light and change their minds/reciprocate. It’s not naivete that makes these people wait.
Mike, I think it’s more when you meet them and are open to being friends or more, then you start to fall for them or whatever n want more.
As IDBY says “But not everyone will move on. You do realize that right? Lots of people will stay and hope. As a matter of fact lots of movies are based on the fact that if someone waits long enough their love interest will see the light and change their minds/reciprocate. It’s not naivete that makes these people wait.”
I agree, I was under the impression men had to be persistent and WIN the woman’s love until I grew older and learned that persistence may work for some but for others it would be harassment. It’s a pretty complex game I guess.
My husband of 20+ years was actually in “The Friend Zone” for our first year of grad school….obviously, that zone’s borders can be fluid and can blur into “The Romantic Zone”! Involved in an abusive and overwhelming relationship with another person makes you wary of other people…but over a year, I got to know the really cool piano-playing guy at the next table, who eventually became my spouse….Doesn’t it take time to get to know somebody and relax and build rapport where you can easily talk about stuff: college life, science questions, and obscure artists throughout history? I felt relaxed with him and didn’t detect any strong come-ons (although he may have thought he was being real subtle!), so I was able to open up and talk more freely….
@Archy: Keep trying! Maybe trying a class in something (I dunno) or joining a club (sports? ping pong? whatever) or volunteering in a political or social justice cause might be the way to get to know some new people while getting fit or having fun!
Leia,
There’s nothing wrong with being in the “friend zone,” so long as you actually want to be friends. The problem is with a man who is in the “friend zone” and does not want to be.
It’s entirely possible (likely even!) that for some of the time your future husband was in the “friend zone” he was happy just to be friends, in which case there was no problem.
Lela’s husband didn’t want to be in the friend zone, but was hoping that she would change her mind if he was patient. She did.
I put it all on pause, got health issues to sort. Funnily enough the activities I goto tend to be with married women 10 years my senior. But it’ll happen eventually, I’m not actively looking atm. Too many other issues on my plate to fix first.
“The nice guy cliche is a complex one, it’s not as simple as saying they don’t want friends, just a girlfriend/sex.”
Or, maybe it is that simple. There’s no shame in just wanting sex. Maybe people who use the phrase, “just sex” have never really wanted sex. I mean really wanted it and couldn’t find it.
After a while, maybe you don’t want more friends. And that’s ok too. You don’t owe anyone friendship for being average or even awesome. Certainly not if you’ve already got a hundred.
A glass of water to a thirsty man is delicious. If he’s drowning not so much.
Learn to say no thanks. Or cut some loose to make room. Prioritize what makes you happy.
I believe the conversation on people being dissatisfied with being in the friend zone versus respecting the other person’s boundaries have to do with the initial goal that the person has when embarking on the said friendship/interaction with a person of the opposite gender. If the goal is to get non-platonic then it suffices to say that if the other person does not have the same goal or intention then they should make it abundantly clear. I think the issues with friend zoning comes when people do not make their intentions clear from the beginning, all the subterfuge that permeates inter gender interactions is to blame if you ask me. For me to respect your boundaries, I need to know them. That said if someone only wishes to pursue a platonic engagement with a man and the man in question does not agree, it is a free enough world for that man to move on and find another person more suited to his goals.
Sorry, but the “friend zone” references a relationship between two persons with a power inequity where in one of the parties consciously or unconsciously uses another’s desire against him or her. Friend zone relationships aren’t true friendships.
You might as well say that the phrase “Commitment-phobic” implies a relationship with someone is only valuable if it involves marriage. But then that would be calling women on their double standards so we won’t go there.
Zing!
It is a choice for a person to remain in an unequal partnership, whether it is a friendship or an intimate relationship. Unless there are threats of violence or financial coercion, which is generally not the case when a friend-zoner is stringing a person along, then the individuals involved are free to go their separate ways… that is if they have the guts to be honest to themselves. No one is forcing the friend zoned person to stay. It is their choice to stay in a relationship that they know is unequal.
There are evil, manipulative men and evil, manipulative women out there. People like that are not worthy of your time. They will never reciprocate the respect that you deserve. Do not allow their actions to jade you to the goodness that still exists in this world. Do not fall into the bitterness trap that perpetuates these maladaptive behaviors. If you do, then the manipulators will win, and you will always be single and lonely. Sad, lonely people are easy targets for manipulation, and you will attract more manipulators. Sad, lonely people are also extremely unattractive to those who are cheerful and encouraging. In your prolonged state of misery, you will be overlooked by those who are encouraging, all for the sake of hanging onto a relationship with a person who doesn’t respect you. It is an effed up cycle that only you can break by changing your course of action and rethinking the people with whom you associate.
Yes there are evil, manipulative men and evil, manipulative women out there, but “friend zoned” has a specific and gendered connotation when used and is a reflection of actual dating dynamics and differences between male and female sexualities. You cannot “ungender” the term any more than you can the term Commitment-phobic.
I think that hiding behind the gendered nature of the term is a means of avoiding critical thought and self reflection. The friend zone is about boundaries, and boundaries are universal. There are commitment-phobic women as well, and I think that you are trying to use the prevalence of dualistic hegemony as an argument against reflecting upon healthy friendship building.
Sorry, but the “friend zone” is not about boundaries, but about power imbalance. To apply the word is to reflect on the connection between two persons. This does not mean that either person will correct the situation, but it does mean that said persons are awareness of the situation.
“zone” is a synonym for “boundary”, after all
The friend zone that I have heard being referred to is when a man falls in love with his platonic female friend and she does not consider a romantic relationship as they are ‘just friends’. So the man who is in love with them is in the ‘friend zone’ so to speak.
I do not see how it implies the relationship is only valuable if sex is involved. In fact I find the opposite likely, they value the friendship so highly the want to take it further. And this does not always just mean ‘sex’ for christ’s sake. When considering a man’s feelings the stereotype of men only wanting sex is taken too far. When you are truly in love with a friend it does not just mean you want to have sex with them. Feelings of companionship, always being together, raising a family, growing old together, marriage etc also take preference.
If you are in love with a friend it can be devastating. As we all know, friends move away, while a partner will be with you for life. Very few friends will stay with you for a lifetime. I wouldn’t say the friend zone implies a relationship only valuable if sex is involved. I’d say it implies a relationship where a friendship is so valued they wish it for life, and have feelings for someone stronger than a normal friendship only for those feelings to be unreciprocated. A romantic relationship usually starts out as a friendship, and is often a friendship you hold above all others.
Unless of course, some douche is saying ‘I’m in the friend zone’ only because he can’t get into this girl’s pants, a girl he doesn’t really care about.
If a guy just wanting to get into a girls’ pants make him a douche, does letting him in make her a slut?