Look you’re just a broad that isn’t hip to his rap or whatever that stuff was he said that made me laugh so hard.
Seriously. Lawd.
My point is, there isn’t some arcane ritual that eager suitors must complete in order to win the heart of the fair dame, or (if you’re more the scifi type), some multi-level password that must be input in precisely the proper sequence in order to hack the door to Fembot’s inner cortex. Or whatever. She’s just plain not attracted to you. If that’s because this specific woman in her specific brain appreciates men who are assertive, and you’re not assertive, well, that sucks for you, sorry, but that’s no different than if you happen to like red-haired girls with small feet and some boat-footed grey-haired woman starts giving you the eye. It works both ways, is what I’m saying, and women are as entitled to have “types” and likes/dislikes are men are.
Basically ALL women prefer men in the range of “socially normal”. That is, we like men who make others feel at ease, successfully read and react to social cues, don’t have a lot of unexpected reactions, match their intensity level in conversation, listen actively, and are good at making conversation. This is not because we are all evil plotters against introverts, it’s because these things actually make you a better mate. They make you easier to get to know, less threatening (reacting appropriately to social cues is HUGE for this), and generally easier to be around.
I clearly had you at “broad”. Lighten up, ladies.
I’m agreeing with you that there are subtleties or nuances about a man or a woman that instantly turn off or attract the opposite sex. Who said anything about women not being entitled to have “types”? One of those aforementioned turnoffs could be a lack of confidence.
And to answer your question, if I’m not interested in a woman who’s pining after me, how I handle it depends on how sensitive I think she is. If she’s too sensitive, I’ll drop indirect hints back to her telling her I’m not interested. If she doesn’t get those, I’ll say nothing and wait for her to make a move and let her down as easily as possible.
JSGodess: How old would I have to be? Are you about to tell me about Andy Hardy movies?
I disagree with this.
It’s difficult for people to imagine “What if?” and actually think things like “I’m not attracted to him, but if he’d acted a little differently when we first met, I would be”. Nobody thinks that way.
You think that people are either attractive, or not.
But first impressions do make a big difference. And people can fall in and out of attraction.
And in fact, there are plenty of happy couples that can admit to not feeling much attraction early on.
I agree with this, but once again all I’m saying is that even a genuine nice guy can suck when it comes to relationships.
Surely you know some people who are nice, fun and so on but struggle when it comes to finding relationship happiness.
Agreed.
Yes, but those guys typically don’t talk about the Friend Zone. They characterize lack of success as she didn’t like him that way, or the chemistry just wasn’t there or whatever. In other words, it’s not somebody’s fault, it’s just the way things are. That’s the real dividing line between a genuinely nice guy (I prefer the term good man, it cuts down on confusion) versus a Nice Guy, I think; a good man accepts a woman not being into him as just the way the world is, whereas a Nice Guy thinks that if a woman’s not into him, it’s something that’s been done to him and somebody must be to blame.
I agree with everything you’ve said, apart from this:
It can be someone’s fault. And the guy who says he’s in the friend zone believes it’s his fault.
I really think that there is a skill aspect to dating (at the very least, there are things that you should avoid doing). I know that some people don’t like to think of it that way; they prefer to just see it as a mattter of compatability, but it’s there.
There are guys who go from one friend zone to the next because they are in a pattern of behaviour that leads them there.
I think most people who use it believe it’s the fault of the tricksy female and her incredibly difficult and arcane rules and arbitrariness. The “Friend Zone” exists because those damned women only want (fill in the blank: bad boys/hot guys/rich men). Why do they refuse to have sex with me when I am so deserving?
Which is fine as a passing thought. People are allowed to be self-pitying at times and to think they’re getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop. It’s not fine if it becomes their fall-back theme and instead of asking themselves what they bring to a relationship, they try to find ways to manipulate women so that they don’t have to bring anything at all.
No doubt such men exist but I disagree that it is most men that talk about the friend zone being the woman’s fault. Certainly most men I’ve met in such a situation are only too aware that it’s their fault.
Internet forums can have a disproportionate number of trolls and people who want to vent, so they often aren’t a good sample.
It’s not so much scheming as it is putting on a charade. Have you ever heard the phrase “be yourself?” It’s amazing how many people just don’t get it. People can sense when you’re putting on an act. No one wants to be with someone who is putting on act, and people that have to put on act are generally insecure.
What I’ve noticed with nice guys is that feel that they are entitled to the woman they are pursuing, which creates all sorts of problems. Nice guys can’t accept the fact that they are just not that attractive. Most guys aren’t very attractive at first unless you look like Brad Pitt. Usually, what wins women over is showing that you can be comfortable in your own shoes. This lets them know that you are secure with who you are and can provide security. Women put more value on security than they do on physical appearance.
The Friendzone is an illusion of false hope, which just flat out sucks. No one wants to be caught in an illusion, at least I hope not. To put it simply, it doesn’t exist. Either a woman is attracted to you or isn’t - It’s that simple!
Yep, but it’s really not obvious what “being yourself” is.
For example, as dumb as it sounds, what many insecure people do on first meeting people is own up to one or more flaws. Or apologize for something. They’ll tell themselves that they are doing it to seem down to earth, not stuck up etc.
But of course it’s very bad to reveal bad things about yourself before someone knows all the good stuff.
Now if you tell someone like that “be yourself” they’ll of course continue with that pattern of behaviour. That’s what feels natural to them, that’s what’s become part of their identity.
If someone’s having bad relationship outcomes, then they need to change something about what they’re doing. And that’s bound to feel like they are not being themselves for a while.
(Of course, we could just say “Be yourself, but a more confident version” but it’s difficult to be genuinely confident in a situation that you’ve had little past success in. Such confidence has to be built).
Agree with this.
Actually in my twenties, I had a heck of a lot of attention from women. And being quite bright academically I just took it as read that I should have a uber-desirable girlfriend (because book-smarts is the other thing that women look for, right)?
Part of my road to recovery was realizing my social skills needed a lot of work and I was actually pretty crap company.
A friend of mine recently got out of the friend zone, and started a relationship with a woman, that just weeks before had described him to me as being not her type and like her little brother.
It can happen. And then, after the fact, people with rationalize it as “I guess I was always attracted to him, I just didn’t realize it…”
People really think this? I think this is another of those things internet forums aren’t good for pulling samples from. I know from reading these forums it’s a popular notion but in my experience it just isn’t true.
FTR, the girl involved was on the rebound. But as I said upthread, guys who suck at dating often need a bit of luck to get started.
In his case, I know he was crazy about her so this will radically change his outlook. No matter how it plays out.
Dating does have a skill aspect, but the skills are not magic formulas to short circuit the arbitrary female brain, but rather genuine social skills that make you an objectively better mate-- things like social skills, developing your interests, managing your emotions effectively, etc.. It’s not something you can fake your way through (at least not for long). It’s about learning and growing as a person so you become compatible with a wider range of people.
Sometimes relationships do develop out of long friendships. But those are relatively rare, and you can’t count on that happening. Every pairing has a maximum potential attraction level, and if that level is low for one of you, that’s just how it is. Think of a given women who you are not attracted to. Is there anything she could to make you date her? Sometimes there is…maybe an overweight woman can lose weight to be more attractive. But sometimes it’s just not there and nothing is going to change that.
I don’t think we’re talking about actual nice guys, but the self-proclaimed “Nice Guy”. The one who is convinced that the reason he’s single is because he’s a “nice guy” and women only want jerks. In this case, “nice”, is a code for “passive-aggressive douchebag”.
The SNL short film “Sexual Harassment And You” with swoon-evoking New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is an excellent satire of this phenomenon.
I get you’re posting this as a joke (although Tom Brady hardly makes me swoon), but this is a popular notion among some Doper men.
In any job I’ve had sexual harassment is described as unwelcome sexual advances so I’m not sure why people think they’re clever with trotting out this silly “ONLY IF THE GUY IZ UGLY HAR HAR” thing as if that’s hilarious. Maybe some of our friends here are confused by what the world unwelcome means (and reading the dating advice threads around here I don’t doubt it) but if he’s datable (using italics for emphasis with a nod to gaffa) then it’s not unwelcome, no?
So while those who like to remind us each and every time that if THE GUY IS HOT IT’S OKAY! probably think they are being very witty it really makes them seem not just bitter, but bitter and more than a little dim.
And what it really feels like is that men are allowed to have preferences which are mostly physical and women just plain aren’t. It feels like the implication is that if a guy is attracted to a woman he is owed his shot and won’t these picky broads just stop being so shallow because if the guy was good looking (or rich!) he’d have a chance!
If a guy is seriously sexually harassing you (e.g: Brady grabbing the woman’s breast in the SNL video) then no… it is probably not going to be “OK” no matter how “datable” he is. The video is way over the top. But, like most humor, there is (IMO) a grain of truth underlying the satire.
Look–this thread has brought out some truths that are tough for some folks (notably, guys who consider themselves trapped in the “friend zone”) to deal with. I think that the situation spoofed in the Brady video is just one more of these truths–even if it may hold only partially true, and only in some circumstances.
I know it’s not easy to stomach but, it just might be that there is some validity to the notion that certain “dating approaches” made toward a woman by one man might be viewed as more offensive than if the exact same approach had been made by a different (e.g.: more “datable”) man.
I.e.–a behavior judged by a woman to be “creepy” coming from Guy X, may be viewed as the desirable “edgy” when it comes from Guy Y. Does anyone contend that a person doesn’t use context as a mitigating factor when interpreting others’ behavior? And, I would assert that “context” does not only refer to time and place, but also to particular individuals, as well.
You don’t say? I honestly never dreamed that would need to be pointed out. When will I stop being amazed at some things around here?