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
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… Read more »
If a guy just wanting to get into a girls’ pants make him a douche, does letting him in make her a slut?
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… Read more »
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
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!
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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 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… Read more »