In order for a man to feel unfairly friendzoned he must have first unfairly girlfriendzoned a woman who didn’t seek or ask for that status. How that becomes HER fault is left as an exercise for the reader.
I’m going to nitpick that just a little, Esprise Me, by pointing out that nobody’s physically a 10 for everybody; and many people who aren’t conventionally attractive are a 10 for somebody.
While many people are attracted to the conventionally attractive – that’s kind of true by definition – there are significant numbers of people who prefer at least some characteristics not currently defined as “attractive”.
I haven’t ever done the “Go up to 200 women and say ‘Nice shoes- wanna fuck?’” approach, but I can say that if you ask enough women out, it’s likely that two things will happen:
[ul]
[li]You’ll have enough success to keep you trying. Plenty of women will take a chance on you for dinner/coffee, if only to get free dinner/coffee. A much smaller, but still non-zero number will probably take you up on the sex offer, especially nearer closing time.[/li][li]You’ll realize that there’s just no downside to doing it- if you ask some woman for her phone number/out for coffee/romp in the hay and she says no, there’s no actual consequences to asking and being refused. [/li][/ul]
That’s very true. I’m a… husky guy. Tall, broad shouldered, barrel chested, and pretty overweight. So sort of like a human version of a bear. I’ve actually been told that if I was gay and grew a beard, I’d be the ultimate bear, FWIW.
Normally, that’s not really considered a conventionally attractive look for men, but I’ve been really surprised at how many women actually DO like the aesthetic, but don’t actually say it out loud to other women.
I think these systems are less about “self-improvement” as they are about creating a facade of “having value”. And I think they are a putting the cart before the horse a bit in advising men to act like a jerk to “show value”. “High value” men (i.e. good looking, affluent, athletic, talented, powerful, etc) often get away with acting like a jerk because people are drawn to them anyway. They don’t draw people in by acting like a jerk.
Also, much of the advise in these books sounds like a good way to get punched.
What strikes me about what I’ve heard about these “programs” is how angry and bitter the language is. When I was young single man in my teens and twenties, sure, my friends and I used to place a high priority on “hooking up” when we went out on weekends. But primarily we were just going out to have a good time, get our drink on, maybe meet some girls. Sure, occasionally someone got frustrated if they were the only guy who ended up “odd man out” or was rejected or whatever. But I don’t ever remember this constant undercurrent of anger that is expressed in these books.
Because what’s the worse thing that can happen? Some girl who wasn’t talking to you before continues not talking to you?
The reality there is no “system” beyond getting comfortable striking up conversations with people. After awhile you figure out something that works for you. Usually somewhere between “hi” and “WHO WANT TO SEX MOTUMBO!”
It’s an oversimplification, sure. But in my experience, the men following these ideas and looking to date 10s aren’t looking for women with cute, quirky, pre-rhinoplasty Jennifer Grey noses or classical Rubenesque figures. They may not have even identified precisely what they personally find attractive. They’re looking for someone their bros will think is attractive, because that’s a status marker. (Insecure douchebags who are into plus-sized women will sometimes cheat on their skinny wives with the women they really lust after, thus giving themselves a convenient excuse NOT to let anyone they know see them with their socially-deemed-ugly-despite-being-beautiful-to-them paramour. They don’t brag to other insecure douchebags about how they scored with her.) And sure, it’s possible for a conventionally attractive woman to not only fall for an average guy’s sparkling personality but to find him physically attractive too. In fact, it’s pretty important to the success of the relationship, which is why I included it in the elements of a genuine emotional connection alongside respect and all that other good stuff. It’s a common enough scenario that I wouldn’t discourage an average-looking guy from hitting on a better- looking girl if he has some reason to believe they’d be good together beyond his physical attraction to her, just because she may be “out of his league.” But if your strategy revolves around always walking up to the prettiest girl in the room and trying to convince her to date or sleep with you, then a) you’re treating her like a piece of meat, and b) you’re going to get shot down a lot. Maybe even 100% of the time. And probably deservedly so.
What if there was a book that didn’t have an undercurrent of anger? Like some of the sites/programs listed. Would it still seem icky or fake or like cheating the natural order?
I think it all depends on whether the program is designed to help you be the best “you” you can be, or if it is teaching you to run a scam to make yourself appear you are something you aren’t.
In all fairness, Mystery’s show on VH1 didn’t seem to have as much of the misogynists tones people are describing from the books. A lot of it seemed like it was designed to help people break out of their shell. Like what the hell does a person actually say to initiate a conversation with a total stranger without sounding like a cheese-ball? Or even stuff like when I meet a girl at a bar, when should I take her to the bathroom to hook up and do we go to the women’s room or the ladies room (less of an issue now that unisex bathrooms are more popular).
What sounds “icky” or “fake” is when they start getting into stuff like “breaking down resistance” or pretending to be something they aren’t to impress people.
One advantage of being friend-zoned is that you now have a female friend, and women have other female friends, who are not necessarily going to friend-zone you.
Being friends with a woman without romantic intentions means you can be friends with a woman. And therefore, all you need to do is become friends with a woman and get the romance included. So you are halfway there already.
“Friend with benefits” is kind of the idea you want. If the friendship is close enough, and the benefits are good enough, heck, that’s a romantic relationship.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly! You already have experience at the non-sex related parts, so if you can get the romantic part going, you’re in business!
Not in the dating scene, but it would not be surprising if a good amount of women are familiar with this technique.
And when you’re familiar with a technique, it’s a huge turnoff.
I became aware of certain “tricks” for servers to get bigger tips, like complementing you on your clothes, jewelry, etc. Once I was onto this, every time I encountered it I thought to myself “ugh…”. I’m noticing it less now because I think a lot of servers are aware that people are aware of these tricks.
Very likely true. I was actually thinking of it from the other direction, that of the man trying to get dates: some of whom seem horribly worried that whatever they look like can’t possibly attract anybody.
You’re in business anyway, if you’ve actually got a friend. Having friends is good in itself.
Looking at friendship as something only worth having if it might get you sex (which probably isn’t what bump meant, but is how that post reads to me) is a major problem. It means you’re not really being a friend; and are therefore not worthy of having one.
Some people (including some women) are perfectly willing to have sex with at least some people who they don’t particularly want to be friends with. Many people (including many women), while they don’t want to have sex with all of their friends, don’t want to have sex with anybody they can’t be friends with. Being able to be friends with women will therefore increase your possible pool of women who might be interested in having sex with you (which probably is what bump meant); but trying to be friends with specific women only because you want to have sex with them isn’t, actually, being friends. It’s being a Nice Guy (which, in case you didn’t know, is not the same as actually being a nice guy.)
I don’t know if it’s being a jerk, or being a PUA, or being a Nice Guy, but keeping your goal in mind is important, IMO.
Maybe it sounds jerkish to say or think “I’ve got enough friends, I want a romantic partner” but it is a perfectly valid approach to seeking a romantic relationship anyway. Friendship is great, friendship is necessary to a valid long-term romance, but so is sex. If you are looking for both, you won’t find both if you settle for only one.
“That’s not what I’m looking for in a relationship” is just as valid an answer for a man to give to a woman who wants one kind of relationship but not another, as it is for a woman. A woman is perfectly within her rights to friend-zone a man, any man, and expect that he will respond civilly - without getting angry, without calling her names, without putting her down or trying to tell her she is wrong to feel that way.
Same thing for a man.
Woman: “You are only trying to be my friend to get into my pants.”
Man: “Actually, I was hoping for both.”
Woman: “If you can’t be my friend, without any expectation of sex, then you can’t be my friend.”
Man: “Okay. See you around.”
IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
Fine. Just sex then.
That’s not at all what I meant; what I was trying to say that if you already are friends with women, then once you meet one that you’re interested in, you should be confident that you can handle the friendship aspects of the relationship, and the only thing to worry about is the romantic part of a longer-term relationship.
To the first point: you might, because sometimes people actually do fall in love and/or in lust with their friends. It’s a bad idea to assume that this will happen; but sometimes it does. Lots of people have started sexual relationships with somebody in their friends circle; sometimes with people they’ve been non-sexual friends with for some time.
To the second point: yes, certainly. And there are situations in which ‘I don’t want to hang around with you if there’s no chance of sex’ is entirely reasonable. If people go on a date with the explicit or strongly implicit idea of the date being intended to find out whether there’s interest in a sexual relationship, and the conclusion on the part of one person is that there isn’t, the other person’s under no obligation to hang out with them anyway. If one person falls in love with a friend, finds it unrequited, and finds it too difficult to keep seeing them in non-sexual contexts, they’re under no obligation to keep doing so. And so on.
Plus which, there’s a limit to the number of people one can in practice actually be friends with; and that limit’s going to be lower for some than for others.
But the attitude that there’s no sense, in general, in a man being friends with a woman if there isn’t going to be any sex involved: that’s a problem. And men with that attitude are, I strongly suspect, going to wind up having both fewer friends and less sex than men who don’t have that attitude.
And attempting to appear to make friends with a woman, in a general context, under the pretense that one is just trying to be friends, if in fact one is only interested in a sexual relationship, is dishonest. (And it’s not the same thing as trying to make friends in general, with a general hope that maybe one of them will turn into a lover.)
– bump, that makes sense. Sorry that I misread it (twice, actually, as you probably saw further along in the post that you quoted; but the second time in a more pleasant misinterpretation.)
I’m not familiar with the book, but something similar worked for me. I managed to get to ~ age 25, without learning how to talk with people. I was taught (small class, student services) about listening and free information and questions, and learned to carry on a at least a half-assed conversation. It wasn’t something I was able to learn by observation, because nobody would talk with me 
Actually even after I learned how to maintain a conversation, observation of good conversationalists split them into two groups: guys I didn’t want to waste time on, and women who’s attractive social skills left me unable to make objective observations
No it isn’t. That’s not a problem; it’s keeping your goals in mind.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a certain amount of assumption in this thread that you have to be playing the game with the intention of gaining a long-term romantic partner. While that’s a sort of ultimate life goal for many (most?) people, there are a lot of times when people just want to get laid (I didn’t say “men”, because sometimes women do too).
Anyway, the big problem often comes in when men don’t have any actual skill at closing the getting laid deal, and resort to dehumanizing, dishonest and all-around shitty friendship tactics to attempt to get laid. Thinking that there’s no worth to being friends with women who you won’t sleep with/won’t sleep with you is just an extension of that sort of tactic, IMO.
I suspect the real trick to it isn’t that there are techniques that are real-life cheat-codes that will convince women to sleep with you, but rather that proper target identification and intelligence is key. By that I mean that all the clever word play, cologne, compliments, or whatever, isn’t going to make a whit of difference unless the woman on the receiving end isn’t already receptive to the idea that she might go home/bring home a man for sexy-time. And being able to figure out who is/isn’t receptive gets you 70% of the way to getting laid. The other 30% is probably broken up into stuff like your height, your physique, your voice, how you’re dressed, etc… How you act is only part of that 30%.
That’s why the systems are bunk, IMO. They appeal to the short term “I want to get laid” mentality, but don’t actually teach you the most important part of that. And insofar as they do work, they’re just teaching men how to convince women with emotional damage/low self esteem to sleep with them, which to me, is inherently predatory.
Do you think there’s no sense in being friends with anybody at all, of any gender, if you don’t expect to have sex with them?
If you do think there’s some sense in having friends one doesn’t have sex with, why do you want to allow this only with people of one’s own gender?