As a gay man, I’ll probably never understand the whole “friendzone” thing, but it seems to me to be incredibly disrespectful towards women. The reason it’s disrespectful is that it is always used as a negative. No one is ever happy to be in the friendzone. Which carries the connotation that no man would ever want to be friends with a woman. And a man who does want to be friends with a woman, who is friends, never uses the term friendzone to describe their situation.
What’s wrong with saying “she just wants to be friends with me, and that really sucks because I feel so strongly about her”? Why do you have to frame it in such a negative way by saying that you’ve been “friendzoned” as if she has done something you didn’t deserve?
It just reeks of male entitlement to have whatever woman you want. I hate it and I can’t take anyone seriously who actually believes it’s an appropriate way to frame the conversation of romantic vs platonic interest.
Gay men can be platonic friends with attractive or desirable women more easily than heterosexual men who are attracted to them as the sexual attraction part of the relationship is not a factor.
I am curious however, if there is man who another man is interested in romantically and he gets the message that a physical relationship between them is never, ever going to happen after being attentive and emotionally engaged with them, does the gay man who realizes he has no shot usually default to being “friends” or distance himself from the rejecting party like a heterosexual man does with a rejecting woman?
Because “friendzone” is one word that rolls off the tongue. All the other baggage you are inferring is ideological projection.
Friendzone has a specific meaning for a specific context: when a girl you like only sees you as a friend. Having one word for that is easier than using a dissertation to convey the same message.
Are you “gay” or are you “attracted to individuals of the same self-ascribed gender as yourself?”
“Befriended” even more accurately summarises the situation AND conveys the disdain for female friendship.
“Ugh, she friendzoned me”.
“Ugh, she befriended me”.
See! Small change, but much more descriptive without even needing to coin a new word.
Friendzoned makes it sound like something she did to you as opposed to simplify describing the situation. It sounds like placing blame. Saying something efficiently, if it changes the time and meaning, wins you no points.
And sometimes a cigar b just a cigar.
I’m not seeing the preoperative in “friendzoned”. And the things you posted above have rarely (if ever) been the case in my personal experience.
Lets say you are lucky enough to have grown up with some money - and it shows. You are a guy.
You start a new job and one of the guys there seems pretty cool. You joke around, share interests, grab a beer after work with the others, but it really seems like you are clicking with this guy. Its nice to have a friend at work. You look forward to Superbowl parties and happy hours. You have your own friends, but its always nice to have another, particularly at a new job.
After a few months, he asks to use your vacation home. Gee, you say, we really don’t loan it out. Either the we use it, or the family uses it. He says “you said you let your friend Tom use it” - “well, I’ve known Tom since fifth grade, he was the best man in my wedding - he’s pretty much like a brother to me.”
Suddenly, the guy stops talking to you. You are being shunned. Maybe he even says some things at work to your coworkers. They slip out to Happy Hour and don’t invite you, if you show up, they’ve switched bars. Apparently the guy just can’t deal with you having things and that he doesn’t have access to. Or maybe four months of friendship was being faked so he’d get a free vacation. You aren’t sure, but either way - its rude and disrepectful.
I’m not sure I completely agree with your analogy but get what you’re saying.
But I also hope you take Atro’s point that after being rejected from a would be love interest, a person needs some degree of separation in order to heal.
Do you really think that using a vacation home is equivalent to entering into a romantic relationship? They are different in many fundamental ways. As one example, using someone’s vacation home is a moochy thing to do (or at the very least, it’s a favor). I’m certain that you don’t regard entering a romantic relationship with a guy to be something you do as a favor to the guy. Second, there’s an emotional vulnerability involved in asking someone out that simply isn’t equivalent to asking someone to borrow their vacation home. Third, in your example, you and the faux-friend start off unequal in the relevant way: you’ve got money, he doesn’t. That’s presumably not the same thing as in two single people, one of whom is interested in the other.
Finally, note the key phrase above, that I underlined. If we’re talking about a guy who got rejected and just doesn’t hang out anymore with you, that’s one thing, and that’s the thing I think is no harm, no foul. But if he’s going around talking shit about you behind your back–if he “says some things at work to your co-workers”–then he’s an asshole, absolutely.
You’re not entitled to his friendship any more than he’s entitled to your sex. But neither of you should talk shit about the other at work.
This sucks, sure, but it’s not the same as someone deciding that what they want is a romantic relationship and not a platonic friendship. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a girlfriend and not a friend, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting a friend and not a boyfriend. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting a particular person to be your romantic partner but not your friend, or your friend but not your romantic partner.
It *doesn’t *change the time and meaning. You’re making a faulty interpretation of what was said, and demonizing those who use something as a convenience.
The situation *was *“simply described”. You chose to make an unwarranted construction.
I meant tone, not time. Sorry about the typo. I do think the term does change the tone from a description of what happened to assigned someone responsible. To say " she friend zoned me" seems pretty clear that this was something that she did to the other person, as opposed to saying “it didn’t go where I hoped it would”. You may disagree, but it’s not a crazy interpretation to take such umbrage at.
What I don’t understand is why astro thinks it’s some weird woman thing to want to be friends with people of the opposite sex who one doesn’t see as potential romantic partners, and that women “just don’t get” what it’s like to be “relegated to the status of unfuckable” by someone they’re attracted to:
When in the very same post he also said that men treat women exactly the same way:
While I appreciate that you recognize that this is the same thing, it sure looks to me like astro doesn’t and he’s the one I was talking to.
In both cases, the person who is making friendly overtures to you is doing so only for something they can get from you - only because you are something - rich in one case, an attractive female in another. They aren’t interested in you as a human being, only in you as in a provider of something they want. And yes, there is something wrong in treating another human being as simply a provider of something you want under the auspices of friendship.
Again, I’m not taking about walking up to someone in a bar and asking them out. I’m talking about someone you’ve taken the time to get to know. If you’ve taken the time to get to know them, and have hit it off, it is rude to cut the relationship off when you aren’t getting laid out of it, or aren’t getting to use their beach house is rude. If you only want one thing from them, be up front about it from the moment you meet them. Don’t spend time getting to know them, come up and say “wanna fuck” or “do you want to go out?” At least then you are being honest that you only want the relationship within the context of a romantic or sexual setting. That way I can just reject you in five minutes, saves time and anguish for everyone.
Any description places responsibility (or “blame” if you wish).
“I liked her and she only wanted to be friends”.
*
She’s responsible for us only being friends
*
“She friendzoned me”
She’s responsible for us only being friends
*
“We were friends for a while and I wanted more. She put me in the friendzone”
She’s responsible for us only being friends
*
“I was friends with Sara for a long time, and confessed I had feelings for her. She told me she really values our friendship but doesn’t see me in that way.”
She’s responsible for us only being friends
*
Show me a way to convey the message that doesn’t assert responsibility for a friends-only relationship on the woman. Doesn’t matter how flowery and nice you want to say it, this is a situation in which the woman has decided she does not want a relationship with a male friend. Just because “friendzone” is a shorthand does not make it any worse than a drawn-out description. In fact, it saves a lot of time by aptly conveying the situation at hand.